How To Make Atheists Believe In God

Image via Wikipedia

My question for you is a simple one: how did you get here? I don't mean why were you born or anything quite so profound; I mean how did you get to this post? I have to imagine that some religious believers, probably Christians, found their way here because their Internet search was fairly close to the title of this post. That is, they were searching for tips on how to force atheists to believe in their god(s). Kind of pathetic, isn't it? How insecure must one be to scour the Internet searching for ways to force others to conform to one's god-belief? Since you are here, we might as well get on with it.

Let me say at the outset that this is not a challenge, a demand for evidence, a call for miracles, or anything of the sort. I pose no grand test for religious believers to meet, nor do I intend this as a trap for the dimwitted. There is a very simple way that most atheists can be persuaded to believe in something you might be happy to call "god," and I will reveal it in this post. If those who call themselves religious ever want to defeat the big bad atheism once and for all, this is how to do it. Just realize that it will come at a bit of a price.

To persuade an atheist to believe in something you can call "god," all one has to do is define "god" so broadly that it cannot possibly be doubted. An opinion piece in The Toronto Star by Rabbi Dow Marmur provides an example of how this works.

Readers of books for or against religion, not least at this time of the year, may bear it in mind. Though exponents of dogmas and norms of every faith and denomination may be flawed, and though affirming God doesn't necessarily solve the vexing question about the persistence of evil in the world, or the mysteries of life and death, no amount of scientific advances can eradicate the fundamental human awareness of a power that's beyond us and which tradition has often identified as God.

And so you see that by defining "god" merely as something beyond us, only the solipsist can doubt it. I told you it was simple.

But surely, the religious believer will argue, a god defined this broadly is rendered meaningless. I do not disagree. In fact, I suggest that we're already there with respect to the Christian god. But remember, this all-inclusive sort of "god" was the god of Einstein, Sagan, Darwin, and countless others who both religious and atheist communities claim as their own. And just think of the appeal! The religious could claim every prominent scientist as one of their own if they would merely expand their definition of god so much that it became completely meaningless.

As for the price I mentioned above, I trust you've figured that out by now. The "god" so vague as to defy disbelief might not be a very satisfying one. If you expect others to believe in a different sort of god, you are better off not trying to force them to do so but providing a clear definition of a logically coherent being, and evidence sufficient to support its existence.

Atheist Rappers

This proud metalhead has never minded a little rap. I'm not up on most of the new stuff, but I still enjoy the rap of the late 80s and early 90s at times. And yes, I am talking about the gangsta stuff everybody loves to hate. What can I say, it is something of a guilty pleasure.

One thing I've never had any desire for, however, has been atheist rap. In fact, I didn't know such a thing existed until roughly a year ago. And having heard some, I'm quite confident that I haven't been missing anything. I don't have any urge to hear atheist metal either, although I do so love the Satanic stuff for its shock value when played around Christians.

After I'd been at this blog for a while, I felt the need to familiarize myself with the Rational Response Squad. They came to my attention first for the blasphemy challenge and then for their slaughter of Ray Comfort on TV. I no longer follow them, but there was a time when one could not read anything on their site without being bombarded with references and ads for someone calling himself Greydon Square. He is a rapper who raps about atheism.

The Psychology of Christmas Wars

A reader by the name of Frozen Summers left a comment on a recent post that really got me thinking:

As a former Evangelical and Campus Crusade for Christ worker I remember when I too saw anything that was even remotely not pro-jesus as an attack. This included all the Santa stuff and secular carols, as well as the blatant commercialism, and the obvious stuff like the displays by ffrf.

I wish I knew enough psychology to explain why, but I think its partly due to the whole persecution complex that the Bible fosters....

Why haven't I been wrestling with this excellent question here? What is it that drives someone to perceive the absence of pro-Jesus material in December as an attack of some sort? Time to put on the psychologist hat and struggle with this one a bit.

In order to make any sense out of this one, I think we must examine three components: (1) the importance of religion to personal identity, (2) threatened egotism, and (3) Christian privilege.

How Christians Have Secularized Christmas

Christmas tree (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once various Christian extremist groups realized that their made-up "war on Christmas" would be a massively successful fundraiser, it was obvious that we would be treated to hearing about battles in this war each and every year. While it is still not clear how (or if) atheists should participate in this "war," I do believe that Christians are largely managing to secularize Christmas all on their own with minimal involvement on our part.

For decades, the preferred strategy of groups seeking to preserve the separation of church and state involved asking governments to remove Christmas decorations from government buildings. This approach always had reason firmly on its side because it stressed the inappropriateness of religious symbols in government buildings. Advocates of this position sought to preserve freedom of expression and freedom of religion in homes and religious institutions while recognizing the perils of allowing religion to encroach upon government.

The problem with such an approach, as would soon become clear, was that some Christians were determined to get their symbols in government buildings. They argued convincingly that certain symbols had become sufficiently secularized over time that they could no longer properly be considered religious symbols. The prime example of this was the Christmas tree. Persons with a modicum of education recognized that the tradition of the Christmas tree predated Christianity and was a pagan symbol co-opted by early Christians. Others pointed to the number of atheists who erected Christmas trees every year. It became exceedingly difficult to argue that these trees, renamed "holiday trees," held any religious significance. They were permitted in government buildings.

75 Years After Prohibition Repealed

We recently saw the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in the United States. We know that Prohibition was an attempt by well-meaning Christians to legislate their version of morality, imposing it on their neighbors without regard to whether they shared their beliefs. We also know that it did little good and was not to be tolerated by the people on whom it had been imposed. What have we learned from this experience? Not a hell of a lot it seems.

I live in a "dry county" in Mississippi. Many small business owners periodically try to get this on the ballot so it can be overturned. Imagine running a restaurant and not being able to serve alcohol. Imagine owning a gas station/convenience store in a town with a university and not being able to sell beer. As for those of us who do not own such businesses, we would benefit from the increased tax revenue these businesses would generate if they were permitted to sell alcohol. It would be a boon to the local economy.

Offended By "Merry Christmas?"

merry christmas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Austin Cline posted a question he received on his forums asking why some atheists seemed to be offended by someone saying "merry Christmas." At least for me, "offended" seems a bit strong. I'd prefer to use the term "annoyed" to describe how I feel upon hearing it. I only feel that way some of the time, depending on the circumstances. I do not take offense at hearing those words, and I haven't encountered an atheist who does.

What could be annoying about hearing someone wish me a merry Christmas? I sometimes find it annoying because it seems insensitive. The person making the statement is incorrectly assuming that I am Christian (a reflection of Christian privilege) or celebrate Christmas. I'm not, and I don't. They have not bothered to consider the potential impact of their words on persons with different beliefs. But since I encounter this sort of thing regularly here in Mississippi, I can't say I'm offended or surprised by it.

Rethinking the War on Christmas

The month of November brings both Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving, but it also heralds something even more special - the war on Christmas. It is almost unfortunate that this "war" is nothing more than a marketing campaign by conservative Christians to solicit donations from their deluded supporters. If the war was real, it could bring atheists together to denounce Christian privilege as a potent cultural factor for maintaining extremism. But sadly, the war on Christmas is nothing more than an exercise in atheist-bashing where we become the boogeyman long enough to fill right-wing coffers. For this season, I have but one simple question: is there any way we could use this imagined war to benefit ourselves and our compatriots in reality?

I realize that this may seem like a strange question, and to be honest, I'm writing this post without much idea of where it will end up. That is, I'm not sure how we could turn this "war" to our advantage. It only occurs to me that it might be a question worth asking.

The Christian right has a platform (i.e., Fox News) from which to loudly blather about our fictional attacks on their religion. Each year, representatives from atheist groups set the record straight, pointing out that there is no such war. It makes no difference, and the dance is repeated next year.

Atheists, What Did You Put Under "Religious Views" On Facebook?

Facebook logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe I mentioned that I had been playing around with Facebook. Since I am using my real name and not planning to promote my blog there, I was not sure what to make of the "religious views" line on my profile. Coincidentally, a reader e-mailed me and asked my opinion about this very issue as I was confronting it myself. She did not want to put "atheist" under religion because she recognized that atheism is not a religion and did not want to pretend it was. This led her to think of putting "none" in the space. However, she wasn't sure she liked this idea much better. Given my goals in using Facebook, I ended up just leaving the religion line blank for now. For those of you using Facebook, what was your solution?

Religion's Toxic Effects in the Abortion Controversy

Photo from the 2004 March for Women's Lives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Intelligent, open-minded people can disagree about a woman's legal right to abort a pregnancy. Why do I get the feeling that I probably pissed off nearly every reader with that first sentence? I recognize that I may be wrong about this, but I believe that rational and respectful debate over abortion can happen, at least up to a point. Moreover, I believe that this point is the precise moment that religion enters the arena. The entry of religion seems to render productive discussion or debate over abortion virtually impossible.

Let me begin by saying that I am a firm believer in protecting female reproductive freedom. Among the various freedoms which I seem to preserve is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, at least under certain circumstances. Yes, I think that the limitations already in place regarding the length of gestation are warranted. However, the termination of a pregnancy can indeed be a moral choice.

Christian Morality and Hell

By Benj, via Wikimedia Commons

Among the many accusations some Christians direct toward atheists is the notion that we are immoral. Without belief in their preferred god and whichever version of their bible they think it better than the others, we have no moral foundation. And yet, a belief system which includes the expectation that the majority of the world's population will suffer the horrors of their hell while a select few are magically transported to some sort of heaven is considered morally just. If this is their idea of morality, I'd suggest that we are better off finding our moral grounding elsewhere.

To be fair, some Christians have jettisoned this concept of hell from their dogma. They realize that it is not possible to reconcile the forgiveness they want to preach with eternal damnation. Sadly, they seem to be in a small minority. For many Christians, hell is a central part of their belief system (and it shows).

The Christians still clinging to the hell they imagine are quick to explain that their god provides everyone with a choice. Their hell can be avoided by conforming to the will of their god. But how is this choice (i.e., do what I say or suffer for all eternity) a moral exemplar? I am reminded of an abusive parent and see little evidence of love here.

Atheism 101: A Reading List

This post contains Amazon.com affiliate links, and I receive small commissions for purchases made through these links. This is one of the ways readers can support Atheist Revolution.

One question frequently asked by those just discovering atheism is, "What books would you recommend to someone just beginning to explore atheism?" Not only is this an excellent question, but it is one I remember wanting desperately to ask at one point in my life. Unfortunately, I could not find anyone to ask. I am happy to see this question around the atheist blogosphere, as it shows me that times have indeed changed with regard to the availability of atheists and information about atheism. In this post, I'll provide a reading list to get you started.

I recognize that everyone's needs will be different, so I am not going to simply provide a list of books and instruct you to read them. Instead, I am going to explain what you will find in each book and make some suggestions about the order in which to read them. Your time and resources may be limited, so my goal is for you to have enough information to choose wisely.

How Miracles Work

Religious believers sometimes struggle to explain exactly how miracles work. This is understandable. Explaining something that doesn't exist can be tough. Fortunately, I found two Christians who were at least willing to try amidst a sad story from Florida. Maybe we can learn something about miracles together.

The driver of a tractor-trailer, talking on his cell phone while driving like virtually every bad driver I see on the road these days (can you tell this is a pet peeve?), collided with a school bus. One child died, but passers-by were able to rescue others before they burned to death. I'm sure you can see where this is going. After all, you have heard similar scenarios more times than you can count.

Demanding Proof of Atheism Reflects Ignorance About the Burden of Proof

Most atheists are well aware that the burden of proof on the god question rests with the theist. Still, I have seen more than a few atheists get sucked into the trap of a theist asking for proof of atheism. In this post, I will suggest that there are valid reasons for not seriously entertaining such requests.

The Burden of Proof

Anyone who has taken even an introductory course in philosophy will tell you that the burden of proof always rests with the side making the claim. The theist claims that there is some sort of god; the atheist does not accept this claim (usually due to a lack of sufficient evidence). The burden of proof belongs to the theist. If you want us to believe that your god(s) exist, make your case by providing evidence sufficient to support your claim.

Educated religious believers generally accept this burden but attempt to sidestep it through faith. Since they realize that there is insufficient evidence to support their god claim, they resort to faith. Some even try to turn faith (i.e., the acceptance of a claim without sufficient evidence) into a virtue of sorts, almost like the rest of us should be impressed by their willingness to believe without sufficient evidence.

Promoting Reason and Critical Thinking

It has been awhile since I posted the first plank of the emerging Atheist Revolution platform: ending anti-atheist bigotry. But this is something with which I want to take my time and devote some real thought, so I am okay with my slowness. What else do I really want to see bad enough that I am willing to work toward it? It is time to unveil the second part of the platform: promoting the application of reason and critical thinking. Admittedly, this is a big one with many components. I also happen to view it as an essential part of what I want to do here.

Reason, Critical Thinking, and Atheism

For many of us, atheism is the natural outcome of the application of reason to all spheres of one's life. Like many of you, I started by learning how to apply reason in very focused matters (e.g., certain academic courses that required it). I discovered the utility and even beauty in these methods. Eventually, I would apply them to matters of religion. Like most atheists, I found this to be an extremely revealing endeavor.

Not everyone who gains reasoning skills and critical thinking ability is going to end up as an atheist. You know what? I'm perfectly fine with this. Many believers maintain their religious faith by exempting certain spheres of their life or worldview from critical thought. While not ideal, this is far better than never acquiring these skills at all. I suppose what I am trying to say is that reasoning and critical thinking are valuable in their own right and not diminished if they do not lead to atheism in every case.

I think I would have more in common with a Christian capable of reasoned and critical analysis than an atheist who had never gained these abilities. Sure, it might bug me from time-to-time that the Christian was unwilling to shine the light of reason on his or her faith, but I believe I could tolerate this far easier than the atheist with poorly developed reasoning or critical thinking skills.

The Necessity of Reason and Critical Thinking in Politics

The application of reason and the ability to think critically are central to science and other academic pursuits but are also necessarily for the effective application of such fields through politics. We do not need to demand that our President is a scientist; we simply need one who is both able and willing to bring reason and critical thinking to bear in making decisions.

We have seen the dismal failure of "cowboy diplomacy" when leaders are praised for using gut feelings instead of reasoned analysis. We have learned that making decisions based on ideology can be dangerous when it leads one to ignore facts which are inconsistent with one's ideology. We have also seen again and again, that policies made without the benefit of science tend to waste tax dollars on ineffective and sometimes harmful programs (e.g., abstinence-only sex "education").

I am desperate to see reason return to politics. Just imagine what would happen if leaders made policy decisions on the basis of data rather than wanting to appear tough, a desire to pander to certain segments of voters, or other methods of political manipulation! And for the record, let me be clear that both political parties are guilty on these accounts.

What Can We Do?

I know this is not going to be easy, but we need to work on changing a culture which celebrates ignorance, acting on hunches, and intuition. Instead of debasing intellectuals to bring them down to our level, we need to aspire to raise ourselves to their level. By celebrating the C student, we may protect our self-esteem, but this comes at a price.

I am sure you will have many more ideas on how best to accomplish this, and I hope to develop more too. In the meantime, I'll offer the following thoughts for now:

• Supporting secular public education is critical, for this is where our children are first exposed to reason and critical thinking.
• As important as public education is, it will matter little if educational achievement continues to be undervalued. We must find creative ways to reward this type of accomplishment.
• When the media presents anti-intellectualism uncritically, we must be there to label it what it is and calmly explain how this trend hurts all of us.
• The politicians who wallow in anti-intellectualism and who disparage reason and critical thinking do so because we have allowed them to get away with it. It is time to send a clear and consistent message that we are not interested in being represented by the average students when the future of our nation is at stake.

You Might be a Militant Atheist if...

The slur du jour aimed at atheists appears to be that of "militant atheism." While we in the atheist community know full well that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, the Christians who use this phrase remain willfully ignorant or are simply so used to distorting reality that it no longer bothers them. Make no mistake - this is a form of anti-atheist bigotry and should be treated as such. Atheists need to have a plan for responding to the charge of militancy. To do so, we must understand the accusation, why we are seeing it, and what it reveals about those making it.

Applications of the "Militant" Label

Richard Dawkins was greeted with accusations of "militant atheism" when he published The God Delusion. Based on the book's title, even many Christians who never read the book could assume that it was an attack on their god-belief. That was all it took. Dawkins dared to criticize their religious beliefs; this made him "militant." For those who did actually read the book, it was clear that Dawkins had committed an even worse offense than criticizing religion - he encouraged others to do so. Yep, he was militant alright. Militant for writing a book.

And now we have PZ Myers, widely accused of "militant atheism" for mocking Catholicism in the Crackergate incident. What exactly was Myers' offense? He criticized religion on his blog, encouraged others to do the same, spoke out against religion in various interviews, and destroyed a wafer obtained from a Communion ritual. This makes him militant? Really?

These may have been two of the most prominent examples, but there have been countless others accused of "militant atheism." The pattern which emerges is quite clear: a militant atheist is an atheist who does not keep his or her feelings about religion hidden. That is, you might be a militant atheist if you express yourself on the subject of religion. Exercising your freedom of speech makes you militant.

The Myth of Militant Atheism

In a previous post on the subject of militant atheism, I wrote,

Since atheism refers to the lack of theistic belief, militant atheism must be something like an aggressive or impassioned lack of theism. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. Once we understand what atheism is, it becomes evident that "militant atheism" is meaningless, at least in this context.

In all other contexts in which the word "militant" is applied, it refers to behavior rather than one's viewpoint. Moreover, the "militant" descriptor is typically reserved for violent behavior. According to State of Protest, "Real militant atheism is literally taking up a weapon and fighting those who support religion, and in some cases those who merely don’t support real militant atheism." For example, when The Uncredible Hallq searched Google for "militant Christian" and "militant Muslim," he found that they were used to depict persons or groups committing acts of violence. Catholics issuing death threats to PZ Myers seems to fit the bill; criticizing religion does not.

So what is really going on when a Christian uses the "militant atheism" accusation? According to Russell Cole of the Midwest Populist Party,

Consequentially, the terminology, militant atheists, should be understood not as an expression that refers to the elements in society who possess the intellectual tenacity to hold to scrutiny the mythology that continues to dominant the worldviews possessed by the religious; the flocks of mindless followers. To the contrary, the unfortunate phrase is best understood as the projection upon the reasoned and rational, by those who lack such lucid deliberations, of the very shortcomings that impede the intellectual maturation of the faithful.

Rather than acknowledging that those trying to improve society might have legitimate reasons to seeking change, it is easier for those in power to demonize them. We saw this with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and we are seeing it now as atheists seek equality.

Future posts will explain how accusations of "militant atheism" are a form of anti-atheist bigotry and will explore how atheists should respond to such accusations. For now, I highly recommend this video. If you have written on these subjects, please feel free to leave links to your content in the comments.

God: The Failed Hypothesis

I read quite a bit on the subjects of atheism, Christian extremism, and politics. I suppose I should write more book reviews here, but I can't say I'm usually interested in doing so. The problem is that writing an effective book review is quite a bit of work and reminds me far too much of the sort of writing I do at my job. If I started doing that, this blog would no longer feel like something I do in my limited free time and would become an extension of a job to which I already devote way too much of my life. And so, you'll have to make do with brief recommendations and mini-reviews like this one.

One easy recommendation is for Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. I believe it is the sort of book that most atheists who are interested in science would enjoy. Although it is not particularly science-heavy, I'd be less inclined to recommend it to atheists who had negative attitudes toward science or simply weren't interested in it.

In introducing his book Stenger writes,

In the present book, I will go much further and argue that by this moment in time science has advanced sufficiently to be able to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

Defending Christianity From the Buddhists

Some Christians expend considerable energy defending their faith from real or imagined attacks from atheists and other secular persons. However, we atheists are certainly not the only threat such Christians face. They must be prepared to defend their particular dogma against practitioners of the other religions. After all, they can't all be right.

The Dalai Lama's visit to the U.S. last Spring was evidently perceived as just such a threat. According to a media advisory on Christian Newswire dated January 22, 2007, Christians needed to be prepared to "defend and share Christianity with Buddhists" and those who might find Buddhism appealing.

It seems that some Christians are threatened simply by the knowledge that other religious traditions exist. And we wonder why attitudes toward atheists are so hostile!

Referring to the Dalai Lama’s visit, David Housholder, a Christian missionary with Interserve USA, said,

It will be a perfect time to defend and share the Christian faith with recent immigrants, high school and college students strongly influenced by Buddhism, and everyday Americans who have woven the Eastern religion into their personal philosophy and world view. But to do that, Christians need an understanding of Buddhism and its Western variations, and how to best present the Gospel to followers and adherents.

But why? These same Christians expect others to respect their particular set of beliefs, but they seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to others. This is pure hypocrisy.

Interserve USA was so terrified at the possibility of losing converts to Buddhism that they actually planned advance seminars at locations the Dalai Lama was expected to visit in order to inoculate people against his message. So much for free choice or respecting others' religious beliefs.

Interserve USA's director, Rev. Douglas Van Bronkhorst, went so far as to say, "...Tibetan Buddhists and Americans influenced by the religion need Jesus!" I would hope that all Christians would be embarrassed to hear something like this and would be quick to condemn it. But since this seems to be a futile wish on my part, I'm happy to do it for them.

Christianity is no better than Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, or even Scientology. There is not a shred of evidence to support any of these faiths. Fear by the adherents of any of them that their followers might be exposed to the others simply highlights their fragile absurdity.

Ending Anti-Atheist Bigotry: What You Can Do

I have been reflecting lately on what I want to do with this blog in the future. I think it would be useful to have something like a platform for which I would develop a set of objectives to pursue via Atheist Revolution. This would not force me to rigidly adhere to these objectives but could serve as a guide for letting readers know what to expect. This is not something I am going to rush. Instead, I plan to roll out various objectives gradually as they occur to me. This post signals the first such objective: ending anti-atheist bigotry.

No, I'm not suffering from the fantasy that I can single-handedly end anti-atheist bigotry. Far from it. However, I am convinced that I can and should help. I would like to outline some of my strategy, but before I do so, some background is necessary.

Many Atheists Endure Hostile Workplaces in the United States

If you are an American atheist with a job and you have more than a handful of co-workers with whom you interact regularly, chances are pretty good that you have experience dealing with Christians in the workplace. Some of these Christians would never dream of wearing their religion on a chain around their necks, decorating their cubicles with bible quotes, or repeatedly inviting you to attend their church long after you've made it clear that you have no interest. Consider yourselves fortunate because many atheists have to deal with an entirely different breed of Christian.

Evangelical Christians who wear, display, or push their religious beliefs in the workplace can be a problem. "Hostile workplace" generally refers to a form of sexual harassment, but many atheist workers experience another sort of hostile workplace. Express their feelings about religion, refuse to participate in prayer meetings, or turn down enough church invitations, and they can be ostracized, harassed, or even fired. Legal assistance is expensive, and religious discrimination in the workplace is not always easy to prove.

What Patriotism Means To Me

Man, that title sounds like a fourth grade essay assignment! I wasn't going to bother with a 4th of July post this year, at least not one focused on the usual themes of the day, but then Stardust asked what patriotism means to us. The question is too intriguing to pass up. So what does patriotism mean to me?

In a nutshell, patriotism means giving a damn. It means caring enough about one's country and the people in it to act in order to make it better. This is precisely why the right-wing mantras like "love it or leave it" infuriate me so. If I didn't think my country was worth the effort, I wouldn't expend any. It is precisely because I love my country that I want to improve it.

Atheist Revolution's Health Care Plan

I was sick last weekend, and I'm still feeling lousy. I have no energy and feel like I could sleep all the time. If I'm not feeling any better by this afternoon, I'll probably have to visit the doctor. I've just been holding off because of the expense. You see, I recently opted out of my employer-paid medical plan for a free one with much better benefits. The new plan does not even require me to visit health care providers. All I have to do is pray.

Health care will be a big issue in the 2008 U.S. election. Given that the United States is the only Western democracy without universal health care, it should be a big issue. While Obama promises universal health care, McCain seems satisfied with the quality of our current health care system, a system ranked 37th by the World Health Organization.

Militant Atheism

Since the news media began to popularize "the new atheism," the subject of atheism is cropping up everywhere. Reports of declining church attendance and increases in the number of people indicating that they are not affiliated with any religious tradition, many commentators have found themselves faced with reporting on a poorly understood group of people describing themselves as "atheists," "freethinkers," and "secular humanists." In this post, we will explore the meaning of "militant atheism" and try to help the reader understand how it is commonly misused.

Before addressing militant atheism, we need to review the meaning of atheism and correct one of the most common misconceptions about what atheists believe. Failure to do so will prevent us from understanding militant atheism.

Witnessing to Atheists

I've got some great yet simple advice for evangelical Christians wanting to "witness" to atheists. For all my regular heathen readers, "witnessing" is Christianspeak for sharing the "good news" with non-Christians. They want to convert you, and they think that dangling salvation in front of you will do the trick. But this post isn't for you; it is for them. I want to let them in on our secret and give them a bit of advice when it comes to "witnessing" to atheists.

So, what is my advice to evangelical Christians on "witnessing" to atheists? Don't do it. Told you is was simple. I know your church says you are supposed to do this and that you'll win friends and magic Jesus points for your efforts. I know your bible makes you think that this is what your god wants. I even know that your failures are more important than your successes because they reinforce your persecution complex. But don't do it.

Here is why you should not "witness" to atheists:

1. We've already heard it. Trust me when I say that we're used to being bombarded by an endless parade of evangelicals, standing on our porches with their tracts, well-behaved children, and self-righteousness.
2. Making a nuisance of yourself only diminishes your religion in our eyes. We know where your churches are, and we can come by if we wish. We don't need the sales pitch, and it just turns us off.
3. We're probably more familiar with Christian apologetics than you are. Not only have we already heard your "good news," but we're no stranger to the arguments that impress you so much. In fact, we see through them rather easily. We don't become atheists on a whim; we've thought through this already.
4. When you're "witnessing," you come across as extremely condescending. I know you try not to do so and that you think you do a fairly good job of it. But you radiate condescension and self-righteousness while spreading your message. As much as you try to make it about Jesus, it always comes off as being about you.
5. We don't come to your home and evangelize atheism. Maybe we should, but we don't. Reflect on how you would like an atheist interrupting your family time or attempting to promote atheism with your children. How about treating us how you would like to be treated?

Time to recap. Witnessing to atheists? Don't do it.

Sowing the Seeds of Doubt

Kieran Bennett's informative analysis (update: blog no longer active) of deconversion stories is a must-read for any atheist wanting to know what we can do to help Christians overcome faith and embrace reality. The results suggest that there are many things we can do. At the same time, Bennett's post raises many more important questions than it answers. Perhaps a change of strategy is in order.

Bennett makes some important points that should prompt discussion among atheists:

1. The sort of doubt necessary for deconversion comes from within the individual.
2. Informing people of alternatives to Christianity may be helpful for those already questioning the role of religion in their lives.
3. Defending science and rationalism, especially in the educational domain, is important.

America the Intolerant: Attitudes Toward Atheists Revealing

We Americans often pride ourselves in being a fairly tolerant bunch. However, the often cited University of Minnesota study of Americans' attitudes toward various religious groups casts serious doubt on the accuracy of our common self-perception. Even in 2008, being an atheist in America is no picnic. This should give every American cause to examine his or her own tolerance.

Equality gaps certainly remain, but most would agree that women and persons of color have made significant progress over the last few decades. Even the LGBT community has made great strides, much to the dismay of the Christian extremists among us. And yet, the picture is far less positive for American atheists.

Writing in The Tahoe Daily Tribune, Damian Sowers reports on the American Mosaic Project, which used telephone surveys of over 2,000 Americans to study attitudes toward religion. According to the authors, their study showed that "Americans draw symbolic boundaries that clearly and sharply exclude atheists in both private and public life." Moreover, "From a list of groups that also includes Muslims, recent immigrants, and homosexuals, Americans name atheists as those least likely to share their vision of American society."

If, as the authors suggest, public attitudes toward atheists can be used as an indicator of socio-political tolerance, the results of the study are unfortunate. While tolerance for various religions appears to have increased over the past 40 years, no such trend was observed for atheists. According to researcher Penny Edgell, "it is possible that the increasing tolerance for religious diversity may have heightened awareness of religion itself as a basis for solidarity in American life and sharpened the boundary between believers and nonbelievers in our collective imagination."

Sowers, himself an atheist, writes:

The very fact that atheists are distrusted by the masses is not very surprising, but I never fully recognized how feared and hated we truly are. For instance, the authors found that rejection of atheists is even higher than anti-Muslim sentiment in the post-9/11 era, and "Americans construct the atheist as the symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."

Sowers argues that continued prejudice against atheists in America is most likely attributable to the presumed link between religion and morality. I agree completely. To the degree that atheism is construed as synonymous with immorality (or even evil), atheists will be feared and despised. Sowers is also correct to point out that the erroneous but popular efforts to link science and secularism with the Holocaust simply strengthen anti-atheist bigotry. This is why it is important to discuss Expelled.

So what does this study tell us about the underlying nature of American culture? Equality is supposed to be a staple of the modern era, but it seems that American prejudices don't ever diminish; instead, they merely drift from one marginalized clique to another, following the capricious tides of mob-sanctioned intolerance. As of now, slandering atheists has not yet been labeled politically incorrect, and many people, including priests and rabbis, have taken full advantage of this impunity.

We atheists have a clear stake in helping to define anti-atheist bigotry as an unacceptable form of intolerance. To date, our organization and our outrage have been insufficient to make much progress toward this goal. It is up to us now. Are we serious about pursuing equality?

Christian Belief and Mental Illness

Institute of Mental Health 8, Nov 06 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The boundary between religious belief and mental illness can sometimes be fuzzy. It is common for persons suffering from some forms of mental illness to have religious content in their delusions or obsessions, and this can be a complicating factor in effective diagnosis and treatment. Still, beliefs which may seem quite unusual to most of us are almost never sufficient for a psychiatric diagnosis.

Sam grew up in a small town in the Midwest and was raised in the same fundamentalist Protestant denomination of most of his neighbors. Faith was an important part of his life, not because he was particularly devout but because it was the context in which he grew up. His childhood was fairly ordinary, but he was never what his parents would consider a typical child. Sam was always much quieter and more introspective than his brother. He struggled in school, had difficulty making friends, and was never the athlete his father sought.

Sam was 14 when his father died, and this affected him greatly. Within two years, he would drop out of high school and take a job at a gas station near his home to help support his family. Sam's brother, 3 years his elder, had graduated from high school and received a scholarship to attend a state college, leaving Sam and his mother behind.

Day of Mockery: The Obligatory Easter Post

Easter is an excellent day for mocking Christian beliefs. I'm not advocating the mockery of Christians, and I wouldn't even suggest that all their beliefs deserve mockery. I suspect that most Christians are what could be called "Christian in name only" because they do not actually believe much of the core Christian doctrine. They merely find it familiar and haven't bothered to question much of it. I save my mockery for the beliefs of those who do actually believe this nonsense, rejecting reason, science, and even common sense in pursuit of delusion.

I realize that the claim that most so-called Christians do not believe the central dogma is controversial. It requires support, a task on which I and others in the atheist blogosphere are working (also see The Prime Directive). In a nutshell, our argument is that the majority of persons who identify as Christian do not live their lives as if they truly believed what they claim to believe. However, this claim is not my focus for this post. Rather, I'd like to focus on those few who do actually believe this garbage.

The Importance of Church-State Separation

Maybe it is a little silly for me to participate in the annual "Blog Against Theocracy." After all, this isn't a once-a-year topic for me but one I address quite frequently. Still, this does give me an excuse to reflect on the issue of church-state separation and that can't be a bad thing. I'd like to make this contribution more of a personal one by focusing on why I am passionate about preserving the separation of church and state, even widening the gap between them.

In taking an honest look at why I am so devoted to church-state separation, I think it is probably accurate to say that I can boil it down to two reasons. First, I am an atheist, and as such, I recognize that I have no safety in a religiously-infused government. I know full well what proponents of theocracy think of atheists. It is in my self-interest to fight for the separation of church and state because I am imperiled by the alternative.

The second reason for my ongoing focus on church-state separation is that I am convinced that the introduction of religion into government is bad for everyone because religious belief is inherently irrational and destructive. I am for the separation of church and state, in part, because I recognize the costs of religion and consider them excessive.

Those who oppose the Constitutional separation of church and state which has been among America's most important contributions to global politics are unlikely to be swayed by any rational arguments. They want their particular religion, nearly always evangelical fundamentalist Christianity, to be given special status. While they naturally oppose the blending of any other religion with government, they are convinced that theirs is the exception because they are the ones with "the truth."

Even though moderates of many religious traditions recognize that merging religion and government is as bad for religion as it is for government, the Christian extremists who strive for Christian theocracy are willing to take that risk. Remember, these are the sorts who routinely argue that the laws of their god should take priority over our laws. Sounds a bit too much like Iran for my taste.

I'll continue to blog against theocracy year-round, defending reason from those who attack it in the name of religious delusion and opposing Christian extremism as a threat.

For more on this important topic, see The Separation of Church and State Is an Important American Value.

How Many Atheists Are There? We May Never Know

There is reason to believe that surveys conducted to identify the number of American atheists provide low estimates, but let's assume for a minute that we can trust these data as being reasonably accurate. A commonly reported number is that 1.6% of Americans identify themselves as atheists. If the U.S. population is approximately 303.5 million, this means that there are at least 4,856,000 atheists in America who identify as such. That is a lot of atheists!

Given that the number of Americans reporting no religious affiliation is 16.1%, we can assume that there are at least some people out there who are atheists but who do not want to identify themselves as atheists for a variety of reasons. As a quick example, combining the number who identify themselves as either atheist or agnostic gets us to 4% (roughly 12,140,000 people).

All Children are Born Atheists

Anyone who understands the definition of atheism must acknowledge that all children are born atheists, including those born to Christian parents. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of acceptance of the theistic belief claim (i.e., some god or gods exist). A theist is one who believes that god(s) exist; an atheist is one who does not share this belief. The newborn child cannot even entertain such possibilities and thus lacks theistic belief. Atheism is the default position, and this is where we all begin.

In order for Christians to argue against the reality that all children are born atheists, they must distort the meaning of atheism. They must convince themselves and their audience that atheism is a religion, a philosophy, or a worldview. They claim that atheism is an explicit repudiation of religion and that it involves "faith" that no gods exist. Such distortions in the meaning of atheism allow them to claim that children cannot be born atheists because atheism requires the same sort of deliberate choice required by religious belief.

Exposure to Atheism Does Not Always Strengthen Their Faith

It seems nearly impossible for Christians to discuss atheism without eventually making the claim that encountering atheists strengthens their faith. Of course, this should be no surprise. Material that contradicts one's belief system often strengthens one's belief in the "truth" one thinks one has, especially when one refuses to question the assumptions behind this "truth" (i.e., refuses to exercise reason). And yet, many ex-Christians report that exposure to other atheists and/or atheist-oriented material had exactly the opposite effect. They will often tell you it helped them break free from irrational belief.

Baptists At My Door

I don't remember a time when I did not despise religious proselytizing. Growing up in the Western part of the United States, the door-to-door peddling of superstition was mostly restricted to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. We simply did not have anything like the evangelical Christians who now surround me. Since moving to Mississippi, I have become accustomed to frequent visits by evangelicals. And yet, it seems to irritate me more each time it happens. I think that is mostly because they keep coming no matter what I do.

When I added a large "No Soliciting" sign to my front yard, positioned so that most people would be able to see it before getting out of their cars, I expected it to help a little. I knew that the most rabid evangelical Christians would not see it as applying to them. They were here to convert me and not to sell me anything. Still, I figured the sign might have some impact. While it did end most non-religious door-to-door sales, it had no measurable effect on Christian proselytizing.

Christians Rely on Ex Post Facto Arguments

Nathan at Very Special Monkeys has an interesting post on the subject of "rational Christianity" and why it is inherently flawed. The crux of his argument centers on the nature of ex post facto discourse and how Christians are often guilty of using it to defend their beliefs. I thought this was worth highlighting here since it is likely to be a concept with which many people are unfamiliar.

Briefly, an ex post facto argument is a logically flawed claim in which claimant begins by assuming that an unsupported claim is true and then reasons backward from the claim in order to support it. Students of logic will immediately recognize the problems with such an approach. Instead of offering premises which lead to a conclusion, the ex post facto claim begins with the conclusion, assumes it to be true without having demonstrated it as such, and then attempts to manufacture support for the conclusion. The merit, falsifiability or, or veracity of the conclusion is never questioned.

When Christians attempt to use reason to support their claims, they do so in an ex post facto manner. They start by accepting the conclusion that their god exists and then try develop what appear to be reasoned arguments to support this conclusion. This violates the most rudimentary principles of logic, ensuring that the result will be irrational. They are claiming to support the claim that their god exists, but this claim is never actually up for debate; it is the core presupposition from which the argument begins.

Another striking and extremely common example of ex post facto reasoning can be observed whenever a Christian commits a heinous criminal act (e.g., priests molesting children). The unsupported conclusion is something like, "Christians don't do bad things." From this point, you hear them work backward to deny that the perpetrator was a "real Christian." What is never questioned is the claim that Christians don't do bad things.

As Nathan points out, ex post facto arguments should not be accepted. They are irrational on their face and should be identified as such. Beginning with the assumption that some god exists without first proving it is a logical fallacy.

Defending the Atheist Movement and Recognizing Our Shared Humanity

Driving down a scenic stretch of road, I observe two men, both riding Harley-Davidson motorcycles, pass each other while heading in opposite directions. Both extend the well-known "low wave," a one-armed salute one often sees among bikers. There was no reason to suspect that these men knew each other, only that they share a common bond. They belong to no real community and have no organizational structure. Their bond is about a shared identity. And even though they may never meet face-to-face, the connection is palpable.

The atheist movement has been criticized for not being a real movement at all. The sharpest critics are atheists themselves, and some seem to have a general distaste for any attempts to foster a secular community. Time and time again, they point out that atheists need not have anything in common except atheism and that atheism is ill-suited for bringing people together.

America's Evolution Denial

If you have ever used a computer, talked on a cell phone, visited a physician, or operated a motor vehicle, you have benefited from science. Much of the food you eat, the medicines you use, and so many other things you may take for granted have been influenced by the biological sciences in particular. In addition to being the foundation of the modern biological sciences, evolutionary theory has been more rigorously evaluated and received more empirical support than any other theory from any branch of science. And yet, more Americans endorse creationist explanations for human origins than evolutionary ones.

The Importance of America's Evolution Denial

America has a long history of religious fundamentalism, and Americans' distaste for evolution is not exactly a new phenomenon. Despite widespread rejection of evolution in the general population, American science has continued to advance to the benefit of all citizens. Why then should this be a pressing concern now?

What Is Christian Extremism?

The tagline for Atheist Revolution is "Breaking free from irrational belief and opposing Christian extremism." Most people are familiar with the concept of "religious extremism," but what exactly is Christian extremism?

I trust that you are used to hearing terms such as "religious extremism," "Islamofascist," "Islamic extremist," and the like. If you have been exposed to any of the U.S. news media's coverage of the Bush administration's unjust war in Iraq, you have encountered these phrases countless times. They provide us with a useful starting point in defining Christian extremism.

Christian Fundamentalism

In the interest of both brevity and improved understanding, I will place the following discussion in a Christian context, exploring the meanings of Christian fundamentalism, Christian extremism, and Christian terrorism. What do we mean by Christian fundamentalism, and what criteria identify a Christian fundamentalist? Drawing on multiple scholarly sources, we can utilize the following criteria:

• Biblical Inerrancy/Literalism (at least with regard to creation)
• Evangelism
• Premillenialism (expectation of second coming, rapture, etc.)
• Separatism/Sense of Persecution

So, a Christian fundamentalist is someone who fits this description.

No Ghosts, No Gods

I wanted to try something different in the post, so I have constructed some dialogue between three people discussing the existence of ghosts. What follows is based on actual conversations I have had; however, I have taken some license by collapsing multiple conversations along these lines into a single one to make it easier to read.

A: What about you? How many ghosts have you seen?
B: I've seen four ghosts in my lifetime, each at a different time and in a different place.
Z: None of us have ever seen a ghost because ghosts don't exist.

A: How do you know what we've seen? Were you there?
Z: I don't claim to know what you saw. I have no idea what you saw, but I know it wasn't a ghost because ghosts don't exist.

A: How do you know they don't exist? You said you've never seen one. We have, and we know what we saw?
Z: I can be fairly confident that they do not exist because there has never been a single instance where evidence of a so-called ghost has been confirmed to the degree necessary for such an unusual phenomenon, and...
A: But you can't prove they don't exist!
Z: Let me finish. I am saying that ghosts do not exist because there has never been a single case where sufficient evidence was presented to support the extraordinary claim that ghosts are real. No conclusive video evidence, no instances of multiple observations made by reliable sources of the same sighting at the same time, etc. What I am saying is that we need impressive evidence to verify such a claim, and we have none. I certainly believe that many people think they have seen ghosts, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that ghosts probably exist.

B: But like he said, you can't prove that ghosts don't exist.
Z: I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "proof" in this context. You could argue that I can't prove that monsters don't live under your bed, but we both know they don't. To verify a knowledge claim, we examine the evidence supporting such a claim. We expect to find evidence in proportion to the likelihood of the claim being true, so we might not require much evidence for a rather ordinary or trivial claim. But for something like a colony of monsters living under your bed, we would require considerable evidence.

A: But this is different. I have evidence that ghosts exists because I saw one.
Z: Again, I believe that you think you saw a ghost. You might have even seen something that was not purely a product of your own mind. However, this is not the sort of evidence we need to verify the claim that ghosts exist.

Accused Murderer Says God Made Him Kill

I took photo with Canon camera in Tyler, TX. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whenever someone commits a horrible crime and then claims that some god told them to do it, believers and non-believers unite to reject the claim. Non-believers have an easy time rejecting the "god make me do it" defense because we reason that mythical beings cannot influence human behavior. We might accept the possibility that the criminal's belief contributed to the action, or we might look for mental illness.

The believer often has a different path to the same conclusion. For the believer, god did not command them to engage in the despicable act because god would never do such a terrible thing. Of course, one only has to read the Christian bible or listen to Pat Robertson to realize that this is simply not true.

The community of Tyler, TX, is reeling in the aftermath of a gruesome murder that would make Jeffrey Dahmer proud. 25 year-old Christopher Lee McCuin has been arraigned for allegedly killing and mutilating his 21-year-old girlfriend, Jana Shearer.

Shearer's boyfriend, Christopher Lee McCuin, 25, was charged with capital murder after police said they found her body, an ear boiling in a pot on a stovetop, and a hunk of flesh with a fork in it on a plate at the crime scene.

What makes this case relevant here is that police indicate that McCuin told them that his god, presumably the Christian god, made him kill Shearer.

As an atheist, I can dismiss this claim on the grounds that I do not accept the reality of the Christian god. I can accept the possibility that McCuin may have actually believed what he allegedly told investigators. Of course, I can also accept the possibilities that he lied to avoid responsibility or that he is suffering from serious mental illness.

The most common response from believers in cases like this is that the claim must be false because their god would never do such a thing. Christians who use this argument have evidently never read their own bibles. If they did, they would discover that their god supposedly commanded believers to commit all sorts of atrocities. In addition, I find it fascinating that many of the same Christians who would make this claim have little trouble believing Pat Robertson's claims that their god sends natural disasters to punish us for being tolerant of homosexuals, allowing abortion, or expecting that our schools will teach science rather than creationist bullshit, etc.

If Christians want to dismiss the possibility that their god may have actually commanded McCuin to do what he did, they are going to need to come up with some other rationale for doing so.

Tired of the Evangelical Christians Proselytizing at Your Door? Try This

Almost nobody likes door-to-door proselytizing. I view it as an invasion of my privacy, as a disruption of the limited free time I enjoy. It is condescending, annoying, and unnecessary. I think we could find a church if we wanted to do so.

A Brief Message for the Evangelical Christians Among You

You just returned from church. You are looking forward to spending a quiet Sunday afternoon with your family before you return to church that evening. It is revival season, after all. Your doorbell rings. You open the door to reveal a well-dressed young man with a small child in tow. "Good afternoon! I was hoping I could take a few minutes of your time to tell you about the church of Satan." In stunned silence, you realize your mouth is hanging open. Your 6-year-old daughter is now standing beside you at the door. He continues, "You see, we believe that Christianity is a perversion of basic human truths and..." You manage to shut the door.

If you are a "bible-believing Christian," I am guessing you would be upset if this scenario happened on your front porch. Please try to understand that I feel every bit as upset when this happens on my porch. But in my case, the intruder is usually an evangelical Christian. I'm confident that I'm not alone in feeling this way. Here are some thoughts that often flash through my head when I am interrupted by an evangelical Christian peddling superstition at my door:

• "What makes you think you have the right to disturb me with this nonsense?"
• "How dare you invade my privacy with this crap!"
• "How would you like it if I came to your home and tried to sell you on my beliefs?"
• "Does this sort of idiocy actually work on anybody?"

Atheism Does NOT Require Faith

Next to the claim that atheists are evil because some sort of god is required for morality, insisting that atheism requires faith seems to be a favorite among many Christians. In this post, I will provide a recent example of this claim and then attempt to explain why it is false.

Joey Depew, a member of the Board of Contributors to the Chillicothe Gazette (OH), writes:

The thing I find most interesting about atheism is the amount of faith it requires to believe. Christians have the Creation story and atheists have the Big Bang. So you have God, or some higher being, creating the world and some beginning of life, or you have nothing. If I remember correctly, the Big Bang began with some molecule of matter being struck by some molecule of anti-matter and then - BANG! - the universe expanded beyond measure in a fraction of time.

If that doesn't take faith to believe then I don't know what does. Where did that initial matter come from? If there was nothing but a huge void, how could matter just suddenly appear, let alone something as complicated as anti-matter? By some mathematically impossible chance? Incidentally, the Big Bang and everything that supposedly followed is mathematically impossible.

If memory serves, mathematical impossibility is defined by something having a 1 in 10 to the 50th power chance of happening. That's a 1 followed by 50 zeros. Roger Penrose, a British mathematician, calculated that the odds of our universe happening by chance are 1 in 1000 to the 123rd power.

Now tell me atheism doesn't require faith.

Mr. Depew, your attempt to explain the Big Bang theory reflects a considerable lack of understanding of modern science. Saying that atheism requires faith because you do not understand science is a non sequitur. But we can keep this simple without getting into astrophysics for now.

Take out a sheet of paper and draw a vertical line down the middle, dividing it into two columns. At the top of the left side, write "Evidence for the creation story," and on the top of the right side, write "Evidence for natural origins." Anyone who has earned a high school diploma should be able to fill the right column with brief summaries of evidence supporting natural origins of the what exists today. Those with college-level science education will need more paper. And the left side? It remains blank.

To believe the creation story requires faith because there is insufficient evidence to support the belief. Most Christians readily acknowledge this and do not see it as a problem. If ample evidence existed, faith would not be necessary. In fact, it would be entirely irrelevant. The mountains of evidence supporting the naturalistic worldview are undeniable, even by most Christians. One needs no faith the accept gravity, evolution, or many other basic scientific concepts. No faith is needed to accept naturalism; considerable faith is required to argue for any alternative.

Now consider atheism itself. An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic belief claim (i.e., a god or gods exist). The theist accepts this claim on faith; the atheist in unwilling to do so. The atheist need not argue that no gods do (or could) exist; the atheistic position is simply that the theist has not met an acceptable burden of proof that is his or hers to meet. In other words, an atheist is an atheist precisely because he or she is not willing to accept the theist's claim on faith.

Now that we've set that aside, it is time to look at one other point you make, Mr. Depew, because I suspect this is the real motive for your article.

The mistake atheists make is they assume religious people are intellectually flawed by virtue of the fact they are religious. Let's take one aspect of a person or group of person's and use it to define them inferiorly as a whole. Sounds a lot like believing people are less because they are black or female or handicapped, doesn't it? This fundamentally sets atheism against most of society, a society that, by in large, believes in God.

This is where atheists fail themselves. It can be seen in their narcissistic temper tantrums - 'You crazy Christian! How can you believe in an invisible man living in an invisible kingdom in the sky when I, the intellectually superior and enlightened atheist, am telling you that you are wrong?'

Talk about audacity. I can't think of any other group that tries to sway people by demeaning them. But again, it is this inherent sense of superiority that pervades the "enlightened" atheistic persona.

Intellectually flawed? No. Irrational? Absolutely. By definition, faith (i.e., continuing to believe something for which insufficient evidence exists) is irrational. But this does not mean that theists are somehow less intelligent or less deserving of happiness than atheists.

In fact, what you describe (i.e., "Let's take one aspect of a person or group of person's and use it to define them inferiorly [sic] as a whole") sounds an awful lot like what many believers do with atheists. They define us as immoral, self-centered, intolerance, arrogant, and the like, much as you are doing in your article.

You cannot think of another group "that tries to sway people by demeaning them," huh? I take it you have not had the opportunity to interact with many fundamentalist Christians. Is threatening someone with hell whenever they disagree with you not demeaning? Is condemning homosexuals for being who they are not demeaning?