It’s risky to say anything categorically about atheists – for a more individualistic bunch would be hard to find. But let’s propose that there are two kinds of atheists: the kind you hear about, and the kind you don’t.

This is undeniably true. I think of myself as falling into the latter category. I am no activist. I’m certainly not militant in my beliefs.The most I do is occasionally blog about my beliefs or post things I find interesting on Facebook.

I highly recommend you click through and read the entire article on Mr. Grierson’s blog. As Hemant noted:

It’s not very often that we see an article actually humanizing Humanists in a mainstream publication. This is a good one, though.

My friend Donny posted a link on his wall to an old post from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Not even halfway through the article, the author succeeded in irritating me by asking:

What makes Dawkins and Hitchens so fascinating, however, is not so much the tightness of their logical argumentation or their marshalling of empirical evidence, but the force and power with which they make their cases against religion. Why spend so much time proving the nonexistence of something? Why not do something more constructive with life? Why not build bridges or run marathons or even collect string? Devotion to the debunking of that which does not exist is a strange and parasitic activity. After all, I don’t believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy, but I really do not have the time or the energy to write long books articulating my position and ridiculing those who hold such beliefs.

Not only is that ridiculously condescending, but it’s also so full of hypocrisy that it seems Christians just can’t see.

Donny asked me to explain it because he couldn’t see it. I answered:

 You spend all (or most) of your time going around the country speaking about something you are passionate about. About something you believe in so deeply that it is fundamentally a part of who you are.

Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens (when he was still alive) do (did) the very same thing. Yet, it’s somehow wrong for them to do so?

How do you not see the hypocrisy there?

That explanation did nothing to persuade him of the hypocrisy of his perspective, so I further responded:

And that baffles me. Truly.

Prominent atheists are trying to change the world. (Hey, isn’t that what you’re trying to do?)

The thing is, atheism doesn’t want to take your beliefs away from you. There are two things happening in the secular movement. First, the movement as a whole simply seeks to make it okay for me to not believe. There are those who believe that because I am an atheist, I am not American. There are those who believe that this country should be governed by Christian beliefs and the Bible. The secular movement seeks to stop that from happening by making the government separate from religion, providing freedom and equal footing for everyone. Most of the Christian community does not seek that (though some do).

And secondly, many atheists believe that religion causes harm to society. And they write books about it to raise awareness about it. There are those who wish to eradicate religion because they believe the world would be a better place without it. They look at religion and see children dying because the family refused medical treatment in lieu of prayer and faith healers. They look at wars that have been fought over religion. They look at the way homosexuals are dehumanized and belittled by many as a result of religious belief. And rather than remain silent about it, they stand up and say something about it.

How is that a bad thing? Why does that not make sense to those of you who choose to dedicate your lives to teaching and converting people to believe in something no one can see because you believe it makes the world a better place?

And once again, he still couldn’t see it. I really don’t know how to explain it any further. The conversation degenerated from there into a discussion about whether or not wars are really fueled by religion and how many people have died as a result of atheist regimes – discussions that are easy to get caught up in but have little to no bearing on the question at hand.

The fact of the matter is that Christians look down on atheists for standing up for what they believe is right. And until they can see that they are seeking to silence a group of people who employ some of the same methods as Christians (ie speaking publicly, writing books, creating groups on campuses), they will never understand why I look at the conversation and see hypocrisy.

And it’s pretty much one of the most ridiculous things ever. “Now of course, evolution doesn’t claim that the crocoduck ever existed, but if evolutionists can make up imaginary missing links, why can’t we?”

*headdesk*

That’s one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard.

I am probably not the first person to ever have these thoughts, but it was the first time I’ve ever had them – an epiphany if you will.

You may recall that I used to be among those who counted the Bible as infallible and the complete word of God.

This is a common belief among evangelicals. And when you question things like Paul declaring women should be silent (1 Cor 14:34) or many of the laws written in the Old Testament the answer you’re often given is that “Those laws were written for a different time period.”

And at one time, I accepted that. It made sense to me that since women were treated as property in those times when the Bible was written that rules, laws, commandments, etc. would reflect such things.

But it occurred to me today that according to the beliefs of those who spout such things, society was created by God. The all-knowing, all-powerful God who knew that society would one day be the way it is now.

So why would that God create a society and give rules to live by that would one day change, yet still expect His followers to follow “his” writings? Stay with me here.

If God created society and the rules written in the Bible, why didn’t He create them the way they’re supposed to be instead of allowing rape, slavery, murder, and oppression?

On the other hand, if you’re pushing God’s rules to fit into societal standards – isn’t that essentially an admission that God didn’t create the world and how people live?

This all sounded much better in my head, but hopefully you see the point I’m trying to make.

No matter which way you take it, it doesn’t make sense. And both point out the flaws of this “all powerful God” that is worshipped.

It bears stating: I am not opposed to Kirk having his own opinions and expressing them. I disagree with those opinions and also do not oppose folks who disagree with him calling him out for it.
 

So then why is the teen birth rate the lowest it’s ever been?

The birth rate for teenagers in the U.S. dropped to the lowest ever, with the fewest number of babies born to the age group since 1946, as health-awareness efforts paid off, U.S. officials said.

I can’t give a citation for what I’m about to say, but I can’t count the number of times I heard a sermon preached about how America was going to hell, largely in part due to unwed teen mothers.

Birth rates fell among all age groups, and racial and ethnic groups. The CDC credited “strong pregnancy prevention messages” with the declines, as well as an increase in contraception. It’s also more common for teenagers to use two kinds of prevention — a condom in addition to birth control pills, for example — when they have sex, the report said.

And oh hey! Guess what? Birth control works. Not abstinence.

Remember that, okay?

I’m definitely looking forward to discussions on this one.

In 1903, the “Blue Grass Blade,” a Kentucky/Ohio-based freethought newspaper, which started as the only Prohibition newspaper edited by “a Heathen in the interest of good morals,” requested letters from its readers describing how and why they had become atheists. Lawson has meticulously transcribed these letters from the digitized copies available at the Library of Congress’s “Chronicling America” website and has edited them for a 21st-century audience. He touches on the stigma that has been placed on atheism in America and why atheists feel they have to hide their true personalities from their closest friends and family. Like today’s atheists, the writers of these letters hid behind initials and “nom de plumes,” and Lawson has done us a great service by deciphering many of the letter writers’ mysterious pseudonyms to reveal their true identities. Will you find a branch of atheism in YOUR family tree?

The phrases and voices in these letters are over one hundred years old, but the thoughts and sentiments have changed very little, unlike the dogmas and doctrines they were hoping their descendants would have abandoned by now. Their thoughts could be pulled from the latest blogs of non-believers, but these are not merely letters from scientists, scholars, or intimidating intelligentsia, no, these are personal revelations from physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterans, pioneers, settlers, farmers, tradespeople, teenagers, and housewives. These letters are ironically Bible-like in that they are lyrical, repetitive, prophetic, and poetic, but the “revelation” will be left to the reader. If these century-old thoughts sound familiar, it would appear that there is nothing new about OUR century’s “new” atheism.

I didn’t know that there were people who stood up for reason and rational thought at the turn of the century. Though it makes sense – people stood against slavery and for the rights of women; why wouldn’t they also stand against religion and irrational thought?*

*Note: I am not saying here that the same group of people did all three, only that people were willing to stand for what they believed in.

(via)