This is what you get out of the hardcore religious states. You wouldn't see this sort of thing out of California, because there secular people wouldn't feel the need to be so shrill.

That campaign must have gotten expensive...

Well, now I know what to do with all my late grandma's bibles.

Was it any religious scripture? I'm sure I've got an extra copy of the Bhagavad-Gita around here somewhere...

PS: This is 2 years old. Why is it only being posted about now?

Say what you will about religion or atheism, but I tend to find this new atheism as offensive as evangelical Christianity. After all, the only difference is what they're selling. They use the same tactics.

Nope. Atheism is just an absence of belief in any sort of supernatural entity/deity whatever. That's it.

Now given that there's nothing to atheism aside from that, all you really have as an 'evangelical' atheist is to attack other belief structures.

You are perhaps thinking of agnostics. Let me explain:

Theist -> "I believe in a god/deity/etc"
Atheist -> "I don't believe in any god/deity/etc"
Weak agnostic -> "I don't know if there are any gods/deities/etc"
Strong agnostic -> "We cannot possibly know the existence/non-existence of any gods/deities/etc"

Yeah, atheists are all in people's faces. That's why the poor politicians just *have* to keep reminding us that if you aren't a believer, you can't be a real American. Sadly, though, Christian voices denouncing atheism in highly offensive ways, while reported in all the major media without comment, are somehow drowned out by the occasional obscure but shrill atheist - a sure sign that American society is right on the edge of decay!

Clearly, we must bemoan these radicals and remind them of the truth at every chance, even if they are insulted by it! After all, Christians just have no clout in today's America! Fight, brothers and sisters, or the most successful religion in the world may somehow be wrested from our grasp and fade into history!

Oh please. You don't think that "what they're selling" is an important detail?
As for them using the "same tactics" as anything you'll find out of hordcore religion, you can't possibly believe that. You just can't.

Bear in mind, I think these guys are retarded. But don't be so quick to jump to the "nothing is different everyone is the same" thing. You end up saying volumes about how little you care about violence, intimidation, enforced ignorance and hatred.

D'accord.

I'm curious. How is that insulting or demeaning? The FSM is the centerpiece of an academic argument about the nature of evidence for the existence of God, a Christian tradition since Augustine and possibly before. The Church has weathered thousands of similar arguments through time.

Contrast with the constant demeaning statements we hear from the pulpit and public figures about atheists and others. For example, last weekend my father (a retired United Methodist minister) told me he had to leave his church and switch to a Congregationalist congregation because the Methodist minister had stated during a service that gay civil unions are no different from allowing people to marry dogs. I heard Mike Huckabee explain that without God, Americans can't be free, and George Bush I (for whom I voted) stated a while back that he thought that atheists could not be citizens or patriots. These are not fringe beliefs, nor are they academic points.

So with this sort of discourse as a standard, how is the FSM insulting or demeaning? Well, any more than the existence of atheists seems to be.

I entirely agree with you here and appreciate your level-headedness on this topic.

A joke? You mean, disrespectful to Christians? I'm not sure it needs to be read that way. It was intended as a method of pointing up problems with the Kansas Board of Education to require the teaching of alternatives to evolution. the Board had specifically recommended that the definition of science include supernatural explanations, and specifically, Intelligent Design by a deity was to be included in the curriculum. Naturally, this opened the door to an unintended question - if *one* supernatural explanation was to be taught, why not others?

Since the criteria was to allow supernatural explanations, a physics grad student offered up an additional one. As I understand it, it's not meant to attack Christianity, but rather the logical underpinnings of Intelligent Design. You'll notice that it's theory of creation is what's focused on, and the parody extends to parallel some ID proposals, notably Kent Hovind's $100K offer to anyone who can prove evolution is the "only way" the Universe and life arose (a nonsensical and incorrect formulation.)

I can see how it could be taken to be an attack on Christianity, in the same sense that evolution is argued to be an origins theory, but both points, while often raised, are incorrect. FSM is a counterpoint to ID, and evolution is NOT a theory of the origins of the universe or life. Just for the record.

Edit - to clarify, no it's not intended as an indictment of Theism (although it could be used as the basis for one), and the Kansas BoE's redefinition of science was eventually defeated.

When I say "they" I mean the smut for smut guys. Their campaign is just obnoxious and annoying.

And I said you can't possibly care about those things because you equate them with an obnoxious and annoying press grab. They are, in your own words, equal. The tactics of hardcore religionists, which run the gamut of revolting and destructive, are equal to writing books, starting humorous internet memes and not being obsequious. If those are equal "tactics" then you simply can not be all that concerned about the former. It's just a knee-jerk impulse to never prefer one person to another - that might be saying that someone was wrong!

And if you think that was a personal attack, you might want to stay away from P&C.

They're not Christian because the message of Christ never, ever, allows for hatred.

Yeah, but they are not *really* atheists. They just use FSM as a stepping stone to their backwards ideals.

You see, the problem with the escape hatch you used with the fringe evangelicals pops up here. You are quite clearly describing an equally strident and extreme fringe, but ascribing their views to all atheists. That's just as wrong as generalizing from the Christian fringe. If you pay attention to the fringe, yeah, it's gonna be insulting, but that's the focus you put on it in accepting their viewpoint. You are validating their viewpoint by looking at the worst possible use, rather than focus on the far more substantial point FSM makes about it's actual target, which is ID. You can take offense if you like, but the intent of FSM is not to disparage religion, but rather ID.

There's another issue in play if you think that the FSM argument can be generalized to any religious belief. That's perhaps more serious, but as I noted, Christianity has survived such criticisms for nearly it's entire lifetime. And I think it's a mis-application, as religious faith is not subject to scientific proof as ID would be. I don't think FSM-ism is any more useful as a criticism of Christianity than any other religion; they'd be better off comparing Hinduism to Christianity in my opinion.

And we need to remember that this is just a bunch of college kids working to stir things up. Nothing new there, but nothing earth-shaking either. One statement by Huckabee is far more important than a hundred campus rallies, in terms of what it says about Americans generally.

An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't want to argue with you. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a weak agnostic, a strong agnostic or an atheist to call themselves an atheist just for the sake of being understood.

But I agree, while this seems like a cute or funny idea, it is ultimately obnoxious and therefore destructive.

Covert missionaries to Muslim countries is practically asking for martyrdom. It's a stupid practice that needs to stop. When I was in college, I was part of a non-denominational Christian group, and one of the campus ministers told us about some recent missionaries to some obscure nation, can't remember where, but I do remember not being surprised when he told us that the missionaries were executed after hearing what country it was. The thing is, everyone else DID seem surprised. Sometimes I wonder if they are really that out of touch, or just have that much more faith than me.

True. But I tend to think the only difference between the "new atheists" and the old is that the "new atheists" have the temerity to speak out about it. I think part of the reason people find them so irritating is that everyone has been used to atheists being the weird old uncle of American religious debate - the guy who stands there in a corner and occasionally mumbles a bit, but never actually engages anyone, to their great relief. The "new atheism" seems to be different, in that it's a clear response to the politicization of religion, and so the debate has moved into the public view for the first time in decades.

If someone were trying to teach my kids ID, I'd suddenly be pretty darn vocal about how ridiculous it is. And some of my neighbors would be hard put to understand why I'd care, and get bent out of shape, but that's free speech, I guess.