Show Notes:: A Partial Response to a Comment

Please note we did not get through the entire list of PRATTS nor did I personally as it became rather boring and mundane: I also suffered from lifus interuptus, IOWs work,,,lol.  But for those in the choir, I think y'all get the picture :)  

None of us on the panel are "professional atheists".  Like many of those who listened, we are just ordinary folk responding to what we feel is a false presentation of what we dont believe!
_____

So the other day (actually over the course of 2 days and still continuing) a conversation occurred in the comments to our BTTP episode with Michael Wiseman (Atheists on Air: Beyond the Trailer Park Ep. 158: The Bible Says What? ). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_4bPplo5g&lc=UgzUW3Eaj_SnU_5ma4N4AaABAg While I want to focus on the commenters little observational screed of an atheist convention she attended, there is one point prior that needs addressed.  

(These are my personal thoughts and do not represent Sam, Morgan, or Bryce.)

While the comments initially focused in upon abortion and some issues surrounding it, I purposefully ignored such as the comment section is not conducive to a discussion pertaining to abortion. Being that I do work outside the home and getting proper rest due to health is a major issue, I didn't and don't always have the time to fully develop a meaningful dialogue; and to be honest I felt it to be a waste of my time in this instance.

So for all the world to hear, I don't give a flying fuck as to whether a woman chooses abortion or not. It is none of my business. That is between the woman, her health care provider, and her partner and family if applicable. For the same reasons I do support a woman's right to choose,,, full stop.

So if you're going to conflate your entire argument against atheism on that one point, we are done. Just as it is none of my business, it is none of yours. The right to an abortion was settled in 1973.
__

So on to her little screed. And just to be clear, while I do not agree with some of the commenter's observations, I do give her credit for taking the time to note her observation. She has at least has given some thought to the issue.

BUT,,,

A sample size of 1 does not equate to the totality of atheism just as 1 brick and mortar church does not equal the totality of all christians.

I know it’s tough to actually do your homework.. You’d rather be a lazy atheist paint all religions with one brush.

Atheist generally do not paint all religions with “one brush” as you state. Generally each religion, and in some cases differing sects, have various nuance that must be addressed (ie Trinitarianism). Many of us do believe that all religious belief is indoctrination and abusive (the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically) and explains why many theists specifically target young children; both Ken Ham and Kent Hovind come to mind. Also one can include organizations such as the Good News Club into that mix as well as any church that advocated VBSs.

While we're at it, can you please explain why you are christian and not Hindu? Could it be that you were born and raised in the US, which has a predominately christian population, and not India which has a predominantly Hindu populace.
 
All the preachers you mentioned I have no idea about, except the frootloop KJVOnlyism quiverful, hateful, Steve Anderson, and you’ve made my point for me.. He doesn’t agree on the essentials of orthodox Christianity, which put him in the cult category.

You state I should do my homework, but yet, you have no clue who the preachermen are that advocate for imprisonment or death to LGBT folk. Seriously, you don't know who Franklin Graham is? For some odd reason I don't believe you!!

Here's a few more to study - Gordon Klinenschmitt, Matt Staver, Rick Warren, Peter LaBarbara, Donnie Romero, Jonathan Shelley, Adam Fannin, WBC, Mike Pence (conversion therapy), Walid and Theodore Shoebat, Mike Brown, etc. Oh cant forget Scott Lively who is instrumental in the “Kill the Gays Bill” debacle in Uganda https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda/ as well as NOM and World Congress of Families roles in Russia http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/01/21/natural-deception-conned-by-the-world-congress-of-families/#sthash.h5RikYwe.dpbs

It doesn't matter whether they are "orthodox christians" by your definition, they all claim christianity and would no doubt state your particular version of christianity is a cult.

I am also curious what is your definition of a cult? Beside they don't endorse my interpretation of scripture.

What is “orthodox christianity”? Seeing that there are well over 3300+ sects of Christianity practiced in the US alone, there appears to be no such beast.

How do I know you're a christian or of some other faith? Because you say so. The same applies to the aforementioned preachermen.

As I noted in my initial response, for further study I suggest reading up on dominionism and dominion theology paying particular attention to the use of the Wedge Document concerning the Dover v Kitzmiller case in 2005.

Abortion is murder, yet I’ve seen many of your videos supporting it, therefore “murder is not birth control”

We will ignore the abortion discussion for the moment as we will be addressing that topic in the coming weeks.

I know 25% to 35% of the US population doesn’t believe,That doesn’t change the facts.. No one is forcing you to do anything. No one is forcing you to do anything, as soon as you all get your way, you’re onto the next so-called “problem with religion”

Again my initial response was that you state "Christians are not forcing anything,,, but the law has usurped that authority" in the next breath state, "As far as marriage goes, yes God defined what marriage is." By that statement you ARE forcing your particular religious belief, god's alleged definition of marriage, on to others.

For shit's and giggles please explain the various marriage scenarios represented in the bible.

M/F marriage is not a christian institution and is predated by many cultures. The institution, historically, has been in a process of constant evolution beginning with pair-bonding in the Stone Age.

The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. https://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries

And for the record, SSM aren't a recent invention either. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. It wasn't until 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian. https://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries

The US is not a theocracy and the only authority is the Constitution and laws derived from such. If christianity isn't attempting to insert itself into our government and laws, why is Matt Staver railing against the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act? Why is the Liberty Counsel, an evangelical litigation group, calling for the bill to be stripped of language that refers to gender identity or sexual orientation. They are a minority groups and should be protected.

Why is Staver arguing that references to sexual orientation and gender identity in the bill would make it easier for the government to pass additional protections for LGBTQ people? Why would that be an issue?

Because of his interpretation of the bible Staver, claims christianity and therefore he is forcing me to accept his dogma; he considers homosexuality a sin. That is a solely religious argument.
 

Okay, so the title of this article is a bit provocative. But, I wanted to get your attention. You see, I got the idea for this article after attending the 33rd annual atheist convention in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007.

If you wanted to get my attention you could have just asked for my thoughts, or any atheists thoughts concerning your screed.

It is 2019, views expand and change,,,

It was a very interesting experience, and I learned things I did not expect to learn. While sitting in the crowd and listening to speakers and watching the atheists' reactions, it dawned on me how utterly religious they seemed to be.

You don't mention if you interacted with any of the convention participants or learned of their life experiences. Why did they become atheists? What informed their decisions?

No, I'm not saying they believe in a God; and I'm not saying atheism is a religion.

Actually based on your screed, that is exactly what you are doing. Also you state, “,,,it dawned on me how utterly religious they seemed to be. “

But, they sure acted as though it were. Let me explain.

As I sat there watching, taking notes, and listening, I formulated a list that I think is accurate and representative of what I saw at the convention. Please take a look.

Just looking at you first point I can tell you from my POV it is not accurate.

1. Creed

The generally accepted definition of a “creed” is a system of religious belief; a faith. But I am going to take it a step further, a formal doctrine, or system of beliefs, for a church or religious group, or it can be a philosophy, or personal set of beliefs

So stating that my lack of belief or no belief in your claim of a god does not fit this descriptor; it's not valid. I have no dictum as to what I believe, and by that I mean that various fields of study inform my decisions, such as science and history.

IOWs, my doctor tells me that without my medication I will be at risk of another stroke; prolonged - death. Upon further research of applicable medical research, I determine that his view along with the consensus of medical science, is correct. I therefore take my medicine. Whether god exists or not has no bearing on my decision making.

No God, anti-God, pro-homosexuality, anti-Christianity.

Please tell me, this “creed” you refer to, where does it state that to be an atheist one must be pro-homosexuality or for that matter anti-christianity?

You see I am acquainted with many atheist who are not pro-homosexuality. And while I am an anti-theist and anti-religionist, I know many atheists that are not and advocate for inter-faith dialogue. I am going to again assume you haven't spoken to many atheists.

Leaving aside the homosexuality and inter-faith issues for the moment, you do realize that since we live in the US, which is predominantly christian, atheists based in the US would primarily criticize christianity. BUT,,, anti-christianity, your term, is not atheism, it would be a form of anti-religion; which Is also not atheism

Atheism is a belief. I know that many atheists will disagree with this, but the atheists gathered around a common belief of no God, or lack of God, and the need to increase what they perceive as separation of church and state in America.

No sorry, it is not. Just as bald is not a hair color. Simply put, It is a rejection of your claim that god exists. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

Let me put it another way. 

Atheism came after theism. It’s a response to people believing in something. It didn’t come about by itself. It’s not something on its own; it’s the lack of something. That something is belief.

You either have a belief in something or you don’t, and if you don’t then you simply don’t. It would be asinine to enumerate the trillions of things you don’t believe in and then consider those your beliefs. And that’s really what we’re being asked to accept with an “positive” belief model for atheism…that each ludicrous thing we come across must be actively disbelieved. https://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-atheism-isnt-a-belief/

I have purposely kept this very simplistic as one could argue for various refinements of the definition of what it means to be an atheist or what atheism is.

And BTW, SOCAS is not just an atheist issue,,, see the Baptist Joint Committee or the ACLU as examples.

2. Crisis

1. Created a problem and offered a solution. The problem was religious oppression in society with atheistic ideals as the solution.

Im sorry you must be confused. First I would need for you to define “crisis”. And then give examples of creating a problem and then offering a solution. Im a bit at a loss as to what you mean exactly as atheism is a reaction to theism. More succinctly, in the US it is a reaction to some christian theist who insist on interject their religious belief on the entire populace. Such as Matt Staver or ADF who think that christians can “limit the menu” (more homework) in regards to public accommodation in business.

You mean how the church convinces you are a bad bad person and therefore you need to tithe 10% of your income to show your a good little minion? Or are you speaking of the concept of sin?

3. Assemblies

1. Gathered in groups with meeting times. Atheists don't meet nearly as frequently as Christians do in their churches, but they do have state meetings, national meetings, and regular gatherings.

4. Pulpit

1. The lectern from which speeches were made, their ideas were promoted, and their reasons for their belief system were validated.

The preceding two points and sub points I will address as a whole, as by your observation, NASCAR is a religion.

As noted, atheism is not a belief system. What you have done is point to the things atheists and religions have in common: The problem is, these are superficial similarities. There is one organization, within the US, that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion.

5. Evangelistic

1. The atheists sought converts to their cause. They frequently spoke about getting the idea of atheism out into society and to move people away from theism.

What do you mean by “sought converts”? Why would they do such at a gathering of like minded individuals? By your explanation, it would be like proselytizing at a church. I have been to 2 conventions and never saw such behavior.

Getting an idea - critical, reality based thinking as opposed to god did it - into public discussion is not a bad thing. There are too many example of non-critical thinking prevalent in society causing great harm – anti-vax, anti-GMO, Climate Denial, Right to Try https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-illusions-of-right-to-try-laws/ and woo medicine https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/02/23/a-youtuber-who-said-veganism-and-god-cured-her-cancer-has-died-of-cancer/. Maybe if children were taught proper critical thinking skills measles wouldn't be making a comeback.

Think I'm kidding, this from the 2012 Texas GOP Platform

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

And to be fair, there seems to be disagreement on exactly what this meant especially in regards to OBE - The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/01/texas-gop-platform/#20ab560666da and Half True: What Politifact Got Wrong About the GOP and Critical Thinking https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-08-18/half-true-what-politifact-got-wrong-about-the-gop-and-critical-thinking/

6. Celebration over converts

1. Rejoiced when converts to their belief system were announced. There was applause and excitement when there were announcements about people who had "come out of the closet" and announced their atheism.

So I take it when some one is baptized into the faith or accepts Christ, you don't celebrate? As I stated on BTTP, the Jesus camp I worked at would have "birthday" partis for kids who accepted Christ.  If that is not celebrating, I dont know what is

7. Zealous for their cause

1. They wanted their cause and belief system expanded to the extent of changing America to reflect their thinking.

What belief system? What cause? As I stated above, just because one is an atheist, you cannot determine any other information about an individual. Generally though, many of us are pro-science, and informed by history (not David Barton's version). We allow experts to inform our opinions instead of some dude or dudette preaching from a 2000 y/o book.

So, yes, I would like my govt to represent my views. But as an atheist, I live in a state that still has on its books that atheists can not serve in public office. Should my views be ignored? What about the religious right's fight against the anti lynching law (Matt Staver),, why has it taken a century to pass a law against stringing someone up by their neck based on perceived faults?

Im sorry, but christian educators are trying to teach that Moses was a Founding Father that the Constitution quotes verbatim from the Bible, that slavery was not the cause of the civil war, and for shits and giggles and that eating cyanide will cure all that ails you because god said so in Genesis. I have a problem with that. Is it wrong to want truth to be taught based in history or science.

8. Exclusive

1. Only they have the truth. The atheists repeatedly spoke of how atheism was the truth, and that theists and deists were ignorant of facts and reason.
   

I personally never have heard an atheist claim that they have the “truth” in any matter. What I have witnessed and do myself is present arguments supported by documented evidence. Now granted I am pretty culturally isolated where I live and I generally gravitate away from individuals of such character, if I am understanding you correctly.

I believe you are referring to those that appear cocky to you. Those that are sure of their position and can defend it – like maybe David Silverman or Robert Price (both attendees and presenters at said con you attended.)

Atheism is not some exclusive club with membership rules. We have no dogma, no doctrine, no book. We are as diverse in our opinions as general society. That is not to say we dont have our prigs.

The list of PRATTS continue but we ran out of time,,,