Why Hard Atheists Shouldn't be Taken Seriously
While trudging through the comments section of Sandra Miller’s “Good without God” post, I offered some criticism of so-called “Hard Athiests” and tacitly defended the vast majority of Americans who (according to a U of M study) would never vote for such a person if he/she were running for president.
Obviously, this drew some criticism in turn. One needs to closely examine the 100+ comments under Sandra’s excellent post to locate the few believers that joined the discussion.
My argument, here and in Sandra’s comments section, is not a defense of religion or even of belief. I am simply critical of hard atheists—defined as people who have made a conscious and unflinching adult decision that there is no higher power.
The people who concretely affirm that there is in fact no higher being whatsoever are among the people that I do not agree with nor trust. I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists.
The hard atheist characteristic is a defining and damning one. It is a potentially fatal flaw in moral judgment—one that points to extreme hubris and an unwillingness to compromise or listen to varying points of view.
As for pin-pointing historical examples of this potentially fatal flaw… it is widely acknowledged that atheists throughout history have often hid their inner thoughts, so it is somewhat difficult to point out extremely harmful atheists. It is much easier to point to the destruction caused by hard line religious fanatics (crusaders, the Spanish inquisition, osama bin-laden….the list goes on and on). But, like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheists’ character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self. The individual fanatic and hard athiest both share the belief that they are right and disagreeing others are terribly misguided and wrong. This self worship (synonymous to hard atheism) better explains such “Christian” sociopaths as Hitler, Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Kouresh.
Out in the open hard atheists responsible for mass destruction and terrible deeds include some of the most gruesome figures in history: Pol Pot, Mao and the man that some historians call the greatest murderer that humanity has ever witnessed: Josef Stalin.
I am not discriminating against atheists by writing all of this. Hard atheism is a belief structure and therefore involves conscious decisions. In comparison, race, gender and sexual orientation are not choices. My personal distaste for subscribers of hard Atheism is on par with my personal distaste for al-qaida Muslims and hard line Zionists. All of these people—no matter how flawed I personally think that their belief structures are—deserve my kindness and compassion. If I choose not vote for one of them, how is that any different than my decision not to vote for a strict creationist? Or a person who believes in the death penalty? Or an anti-immigrant candidate?
I have always and will continue to pick candidates based on their beliefs. Those beliefs include a strong preference to diplomacy over war and a dedication to the notion that it is our society’s moral responsibility to provide universally affordable healthcare to the entire population. I also want a president who believes that there may be a higher power other than his/her self. As the leader of free world (as we obnoxiously call our presidents) one has achieved something close to the apex of human accomplishment. At all levels, but especially in the oval office, a dose of humility is needed.
I do not want a hard line evangelical in office, but I believe that someone who has completely ruled out the possibility of a higher power is an even more dangerous and alarming choice.
I am not passing judgment here. My idea that hard atheists have “a potentially fatal flaw” is nothing more than my personal opinion; a reason for me to cast my ballot for someone else. I am not insisting that I am right or that I have all the answers. I am simply explaining my distaste for those who do insist that they are right; those who proudly believe that they have the answers and the proof.
And for those poised to pounce on this post, please note that the best way to attack a belief in a higher power is to attack the hypocrisy of the supposed believer. That is a cheap and easy tactic. Plus, it assumes that atheism is not a belief structure when it actually is. I would be interested in someone willing to argue for atheism—particularly hard atheism—on its own supposed merits.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MJwycha
King Kaufman
Michael Hebert
Spin Doctor
Kimberly Krautter
Sactogator
Salon.com
Comments
Pol Pot et al did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed for power.
And Rob, I found and responded to your post before I even checked back here for comments. (that little "friends recent posts" thing is handy). Thanks
But I appreciate you making the effort to construct an argument.
(rated)
[quote]
I am simply critical of hard atheists—defined as people who have made a conscious and unflinching adult decision that there is no higher power.
[/quote]
This is not necessarily true. Atheists do not believe in a theistic universe - a concentrated, conscious higher power. Many of us do believe that we are all part of the same thing, and that while we don't yet have the scientific vocabulary necessary to describe what that thing is, it is what it is. What it is, however, is us, rather than something that exists outside of us. Not all athiests share this, but I know for sure that quite a few of us do. A fine point, but a major one, nonetheless.
As Blue Eyes pointed out, the argument that athiests killed in the name of atheism is just silly. Stalin was not Stalin because he was an athiest any more than Hitler was Hitler because he was Catholic. People do not kill in the name of Atheism - but you better believe that they kill in the name of Theism.
The other "hard liners" that you describe - fundamentalist religionists want to make the world around them in the image of their "holy" books - in the image of a completely fantastic world that exists only in the ravings of their faithful. We, the hard-line athiests of whom you speak, however, wish to remake the world around us in the name of reason. We want government to govern for the people as people actually live, rather than in response to a utopian version of how people maybe should live, but most surely don't. We want people to behave in accordance to the laws of nature that allowed our evolution as a species for at least a million years before the birth of Judaeo-Christianity, rather than imaginary laws passed down from on high.
Doubt is not the opposite of faith... reason is. There is little surprise in the idea that we are met with cries of "blasphemy" from the faithful. But "hard-line" athiests are the foundation upon which we can build a society built solely on reason. To have a problem with this is... well... irrational.
When you admit however vaguely that God might exist, you create a source of knowledge that is not based in reality or subject to the criticism of mere mortals or the uninitiated. To me that is the ultimate danger. To allow people to justify themselves based on their special, unprovable faith defeats any effort to put forth a universally comprehensible and demonstrable moral code. Theism of all kinds is a very pernicious species of polylogism that I reject.
There is nothing self important about considering one's self just another living thing among many billions and billions of such living things. If anything, it is the religious impulse that bespeaks hubris. Imagine, people posit an immortal and omniscient being (without evidence), then they claim a special relationship to it (also without any evidence).
Give me a break.
On the other hand, I'm against accusing people of being stupid for being religious. People believe what they believe for a reason. It must be useful to them personally to belong to a church, or if they don't belong to a church but still belive, that they have the sense that something bigger than themselves is looking down on them.
I'm not sure I would act any differently if I believed in a God, except perhaps to be a bit less annoyed when people use God as an excuse for ignoring evidence. I still see my goal as to make things better in the world for future human beings, with the hope that they'll live better lives than I do. I've met very kind religious people and deeply depraved ones. The same can be said for the atheists I know. Some are moral people, others are not.
The affirmation in the impossibility of a higher power of any kind is more or less the generally accepted definition of a “hard atheist.” Any doubt in this tenant whatsoever and you lose the “hard” part of that label.
You said that, “fundamentalist religionists want to make the world around them in the image of their "holy" books - in the image of a completely fantastic world that exists only in the ravings of their faithful. We, the hard-line athiests of whom you speak, however, wish to remake the world around us in the name of reason.”
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao pretty much fleece that argument. They each sought to fundamentally remake the world around us in a completely non-theist ideologically fanciful fashion.
Stalin’s atheism did not make him kill, but I argue that the fundamental flaw in his character that allowed both he and Hitler to kill was a hubris that reached the point of self worship. An unflinching belief in the dearth or presence of a higher being is a symptom of this type of excessively dangerous pride.
Also, ever sense Socrates, doubt and exploration have been the foundation of reason. You shouldn’t need to be reminded of that.
My point is that to absolutely deny the presence of a higher power is pretty damn close to the same thing as absolutely affirming the existence of God. Science and reason do not have all the answers. I am not saying that religious texts do, but to shut one’s self off from varying view points and closing pathways to knowledge is ultimately a prideful and damaging act.
I agree with these statements. I didn't watch the Emmy Awards a few nights ago, but I'd wager someone thanked God for allowing him/her to win one. As if a God would care about that.
These, in turn, are merely my opinions:
1. Atheism does not equal self-love.
2. Atheists do not "choose" their unbelief. Nor, do I think, do theists "choose" belief. I think it's much more nuanced and sociobiological than that. I think it's hard-wired in some more than others and represents adaptation for survival. I'm not a huge believer in free will the way some people are.
3. It's always dicey and unreliable to use anecdotal examples to prove a point. I would leave out the historical figures in either direction. They don't prove anything. People of all kinds, colors, genders, and beliefs are insane, power hungry, and cruel.
4. You don't really make an argument about why an atheist in power is "dangerous."
5. I don't know what you mean about attacking the hypocrisy of the believer. Has someone done that? Can you give me an example? Because in fact I don't think that's the normal route that atheists take in deconstructing theism. They usually come at it from a philosophical and rational viewpoint, not personal.
On two things we agree:
1. Humility is a very good thing in a President! It's been sorely lacking the last 8 years.
2. People can and should (and do) vote based on their beliefs. We all do it all the time. My view is that many of us construct our rational arguments after the fact--that is, after we've decided, via our limbic systems, who we are going to support.
I think almost everything humans do is for evolutionary purposes. Yeah, I hate it too.
I think it is possible to posit reality as absolute without claiming full knowledge or final judgement about it. Certainly some of reality is presently unknown, to me personally, and to humanity in general. I cannot make any absolute or final claims about reality based on my mere perception which will always be limited. However, I can request that people who wish to inform me about reality refer to it to bolster their position. When people refer to the "unknowable" as a source of information, I am at a real loss. I deny that it is valid to argue from authority not based in observable reality. I deny this absolutely. People may choose to pursue any religiosity they wish, what they may not do is dictate my morals based on their decision to break with reality in significant respects and celebrate non-rational sources of knowlege and power.
I don't think atheism and the desire to transgress all moral codes are closely related. Most atheists live quiet lives of going along and getting along.
When you do not believe in an afterlife, or a reward in heaven, and you believe that this is all we get and all that there is, the value of each individual life is amplified exponentially. The meek shall not, as a matter of course, inherit the Earth, so we'd better get to work on their behalf. There is no eternal hellfire that will punish the wicked, so we had better see to that part too.
No divine intervention will stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, nor nuclear weapons proliferation in Asia, or tainted milk production in China. This is all happening not on God's watch, but on ours.
Essentially at its core, athiesm is a profound sense of humanism. And because I believe that what I do on this planet matters because it's all I will ever do, you can trust me completely, Edgar. I cannot sin against you and then confess and recieve absolution; I must treat you with respect and dignity if I expect the same in return.
Most atheists will tell you 2 things:
1) They don't believe in anything in the absence of evidence for it
2) It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative, ie: one can never prove something doesn't exist
This concept there are "hard atheists" running around saying there is absolutely no god is a bizarre misconception. While it may seem like a subtle difference, most atheists say there is no evidence of god.
I can prove the following: In the absence of evidence, any conception of god is wrong. With out evidence, any conception of a higher power is as good as any other. The flying spaghetti monster has equal probability of existing as does Zeus. The number of possible conceptions about high powers is infinite. I can come with them all day, forever. Assuming a finite number of higher powers, the probably of any one conception being right is 1 / N where is the number of possibilities.
The basic calculus will tell you that the limit of 1 / N as N goes to infinity. Therefore, the probably of anyone having the correct conception of a higher power(s) is ZERO.
If asked why I believe there is no god, I'd cite the absence of proof as a seriously compelling factor, but it's also something I just intrinsically feel--in much the same way, I image, as the faithful simply feel there IS a god.
So yes, I have a belief system. And it requires that I believe that we, collectively, are in charge here, and therefore responsible for what happens in our house.
The reason being is that I see the mark of a creator in everything, from the DNA composition of the smallest cell right through the infinite possibilities for creative combinations of beauty in Nature. I just cannot imagine random evolution as the ultimate unifying explanation of the order seen throughout both the earth and our universe.
My view of the creation of the universe as nothing to do with the Bible or Creationist theories limited by time and space constraints. It is a broader sense of a Creator that has existed from time out of mind.
In result, although I enjoy and truly respect my new friends here at OS, I continue to struggle with the concept of their embrace of aetheism. For me, saying that there is no need to acknowledge a creator is akin to stating a belief that oxygen and hydrogen randomly emerged in the Universe, attracted to each other to form water molecules, in order to sustain random life forms on the planet yet to be formed by other random combinations. It seems unlikely to me that this is how the earth and its occupants came to have life.
To me, Creator or no creator can be simplified in an answer to one question:
Is the useful combination of H2O molecules part of a larger plan, or a extremely fortunate, but ultimately random, matching up within an infinitesmally large universe? I see a plan in Nature, as well as in individuals, that suggests a common thread linking and creating ALL.
This does not mean that I believe in a punishing God, the God that controls our every action by demanding our love and fealty. In Sandra's thread I stated that, religion has outlived its societal usefulness as a necessary mechanism to control the masses.
Personally, I enjoy the music and traditions of religion as well as the sense of community in coming together at least one day a week to catch up and work on group projects. I cannot find a local Church/religion that is not hell-bent on judging each other as well as all other religions, however. Currently, I am not part of a religious community in result.
I do not like the "exclusivity" factor that most religions embrace in their assurance that THEY are the ones that are to be saved. Some small pocket of people in the middle of nowhere are the only Chosen from billions of people? How is that at all rational?
I do not support a "controlling through fear" aspect within any religion, and certainly oppose waging war in the name of God. Those that support the control of women's bodies in response to a parochial set of sexist religious beliefs are an especial abomination in my eyes.
Humans are better than that. Although there are some solid groups within individual churches and communities, too many religious groups exist solely to impede our spiritual growth as individuals. We need to move toward a respectful society working for the benefit of the many rather than an elite few with or without organized religion. There is room for both to exist.
We are fast coming to a period of time when we will be at out best realizing as they did in the Renaissance that there is thread connecting us all, and we need to work for the betterment of ourselves in conjunction with others. I believe a new and better understanding of Humanism will lead us down the correct path. I plan to post on this, but keep getting distracted...
You see a plan, I don't. But we still agree that a spiderweb is a genuine marvel.
And as Scart so eloquently stated, what athiests subscribe to is the primacy of reason. I know that we do not know everything, or even very much, but I believe it can be known, given an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters, for example. And assuming we survive long enough as a species.
If I understand you, lalucas, you don't necessarily believe in a higher power that communicates directly with human beings. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Of course you're "passing judgment here", and discriminating as well, which is your right. Just be aware that you're doing it.
However your (if I'm reading it correctly) point that "... like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheists’ character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self." is just a warning not to trust self-obsessed fanatics, always good advice.
Yes, atheists and religious nutjobs are dangerous, but not trusting anyone because they feel an internal imperative to behave in a decent, moral fashion, rather than because they fear " immortal torment in Hell and the absence of the presence of God", as Sr. Mary Cabrini used to put it (at eight years old, you'd better believe I remembered that line) that is only superficially similar to the beliefs for Stalin and Pol Pot has the same lack of validity as my not trusting you because your beliefs bear a superficial resemblance to those of Torquemada and David Koresh. It's also rather insulting.
BTW - I always suspect that someone not willing to trust me will screw me over the first chance he gets.
Lainey, I agree that atheism does not necessarily equal self love as we define it, but I do think that an unbreakable belief in theistic/atheistic absolutes is a form of self-aggrandizement.
Your second point is true to an extent. I agree that people may be more naturally predisposed to believe in God or to reject the idea. However, the cementing of that natural predisposition in absolute truth is clearly a conscious (and close-minded) choice.
Your third point is also valid, but I contend that nearly all sociopaths that ever lived share an over-valued sense of self worth. Going back to my answer to your first point, my perspective may become more understandable.
I think a hard atheist in power is dangerous because I think that a believer in concrete absolutes in power is dangerous. A person who is in a high seat of authority who is also 100-percent confident that he/she is right about something as big as theism/atheism is a great risk for us all.
A self described atheist like you, Leigh, might even be a good person to have in power, but even though you use the label, I would not consider you a “hard Athiest.” A humanist like you has a certain faith in the concept of brotherhood—a belief in the decency and worth of human beings. Humanism may be the cornerstone of your dismissal of God, but saying that it is the "core of athiesm" is like me claiming to speak on behalf of all believers and doubters.
Neil: your points are also logical and well taken. The one thing that I would point out to counter your argument is the fact that so much of our observable reality is based on faith and theory. Faith in our instruments and scientists along with yet to be proven scientific theories make up a large chunk of even my own interpretations of the world.
You stretch my words with this: "not trusting anyone because they feel an internal imperative to behave in a decent, moral fashion, rather than because they fear " immortal torment in Hell and the absence of the presence of God."
Again, I am not defending any religion or even belief itself. I am arguing against people that are unwilling to doubt their fixed beliefs in either a God or the absence of all notions of a higher power. Where morals come from was never part of my argument.
I don't trust absolutists. I'll listen to them, I'll even befriend them, but I won't vote for one for president. I won't date one.
Do I believe we can communicate with the Creator, who I think of as the One God, creator of All? Well, I don't hear this being putting words in my head --- as perhaps a psychotic might.
I see value in prayer. Since I believe we are all a spark/piece of the creator, I support others by trying to do good while on this Earth as we are all connected by that spark.
I talk to God when I pray but it is not like having a direct conversation. When there is guidance, or prayers answered, I experience life/the answer as a synchronicity. Seems if I am open it it, I end up in the right place, at the right time, to attempt to do or say the best thing I can as required.
I believe we have free will, but there is a most likely path we have chosen to walk down in this life. I do believe in reincarnation.
So, I imagine we are on different pages in our beliefs, but so often I can agree exactly with what you say here on OS, Leigh. We come at life from different directions, but end up making similar conclusions about right and wrong, or how we perceive a situation.
I don't profess to have all the answers, and I am certainly not condemning aetheism. Since a belief in a creator is all-pervasive with me, hearing from others that they perceive no evidence of god hits my heart like learning that the sky appears green to some people. That would be OK, just not my experience of the color or the sky.
As we know, most humans perceive color differently from each other. At least that is what psychological and physiological studies indicate! In the end, there is room for all our beliefs as long as we trend toward being good to each other. This is my over-arching desire for humanity.
I have always wanted to believe in God and sought him out, keeping my heart and mind open, looking for guidance, signs or messages in everyday life. However, I have never experienced what you are describing, just the silence of being on my own to figure out my own way. It has been a disappointment and is one of the things that led me to question the rationality of believing in a supreme being.
Didn't mean to stretch your words, and I'll accept your claim that I may have missed your point.
I am an atheist, I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I can listen to reason and so, if I can be shown a proof of the existence of any deity that does not rely on "faith" but is based on physical law, I'll definitely listen. Contrary to my usuals know-it-all demeanor, I'm under no illusions as to the gaps in my knowledge.
I think you and I have a relatively common concept of God/Creator/Higher Power. For me personally, it is a concept that changes and grows and is sometimes subject to doubt.
Like you, atheism--especially hard atheism leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The thing that bothers me so much about a hard atheist belief is the implicit unwillingness to doubt one's own conclusions. Like you, Lalucas, it disturbs me that here on this website we share a certain progressive open-mindedness with so many others only to find out that in the area of faith/belief/theism/atheism we run into people who cling to that traditionally conservative concept of the infallibility of one's own beliefs and conclusions.
Who are you talking about?
Most rational people, atheists or not, will re-examine their conclusions in the face new evidence. I haven't seen you offer any evidence.
Are you yourself not also a "hard atheist" about Zeus, Ra, Thor, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? I assume you don't offer burnt offerings to Vishnu, and I assume you are not afraid of Ganesha punishing you for your lack of belief.
Also, you take a big risk in your love life by completely shunning belief in Aphrodite, and you are risking the fate of your eternal soul by not being a Hare Krishna.
Both Allah and Buddha are very angry at you right now, Edgar, and don't appreciate your 'hard atheism' towards them.
And I don't even want to imagine the horrible end that awaits you by not being a Scientologist. I can only hope that you have your Thetans under control.
You claim that "hard atheism" is untenable, but I would posit, Edgar, that arbitrarily believing in one god or belief system out of a choice of tens of thousands, each with an absolutely equal chance of being correct or incorrect, is what is untenable.
As a "hard atheist," I make no insistence, proud or otherwise, that I am right about anything, Edgar. That's what religions do.
Just know that you do not need to justify your beliefs (whatever they are) to anyone.
:)
You write: Like you, atheism--especially hard atheism leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The words "bad taste in my mouth" might be a little strong for my experience. I still really enjoy the people I have met here who are atheists. I do not feel that I need to judge, and they are still held dear for me as I love to share and discuss ideas with them.
My feeling is something that bothers me even more -- I cannot stand in their shoes by empathizing without it freaking me out. My mother once said to me that she believes there is nothing but blackness after death. I told her that I didn't believe this one bit, and that I hoped she might consider that there was something even better at the end of our life. She was immeasurably sad, so I had to share that with her.
Even if this is not correct, I don't want to spend my time on the earth believing that there is nothing but blackness in death. It makes me feel sad and unmotivated. So, I guess I have bought into a pretty strong concept of life after death, being reunited with my maker. Since this belief helps me live my life to the best of my ability, having faith is correct for me.
I see this as a complete contradiction. By defining yourself as a hard or strong atheist you do make an insistence that there is no higher power.
Again, I am not defending any particular religion. The belief structure that works for me explains that the vast differences in historic and modern religions are ways that different people in different cultures developed to help them come close to understanding the incredibly beyond-human concept of the creator. Of course, I have doubts in my theory. I read different things and explore other ideas often.
Chidos, I cannot offer you any new physical evidence. The Virgin Mother's profile is not appearing in the mold on the side of my refrigerator. The millions fo intelligent people who throughout history have been unwilling to completely discount the idea of a higher power should be evidence enough to at least open up your mind.
That many people believe a claim to be true is not evidence of its veracity. Until Copernicus, almost everyone who had ever lived believed the sun revolved around the earth even though it was a completely false belief.
That's probably not a good way to describe it, I'll try again - everything (and I do mean literally that) that existed a second before you shook off your mortal coil still exists and progresses, just without you. You don't even get to experience your own absence from the world. Think of it as being like the view out the back of your head, or remember what it was like before you were conceived. I'm not sure that that's a better description, my vocabulary just isn't able to cope with the concept well enough to explain it.
Of course I have absolutely no physical proof for any of this, nor does anyone else for their afterlife. And those that have found out (assuming there's anything to find) aren't talking.
A negative atheist is one who doesn't believe that there is a God.
I always wanted to be an atheist, because I didn't like the vulnerability that accompanied faith. I don't mind anymore.
I live in a gambling town; maybe that's why Pascal's proposition appeals to me. If there is no God, and you believe there is no God, you "win." If there is a God, and you believe there is no God, you "lose." If there is no God, and you believe there is a God, you're no worse off. And if there is a God, and you believe there is a God, you "win."
I came to the decision that I'd rather live as if there is a God than live as if there isn't one.
I don't think I could respect a deity who was fooled by counterfeit belief, even assuming that that deity exists.
My dog, is this Election '08 shaping up to be Armageddon (I'm not up on evangelical blogs) or something? Else, why all this G*d talk (they did use typography like that once upon a time, does anyone know why?) all over the OS map?
And Helen, as I said in some other thread, I personally took the other side of the trade form ole Pascal. But I'll be darned if I can figure out how to collect from him if he loses :-).
I haven't taken part in this kind of debate for a long time, at least not since my perusal of Tractatus and such tomes in a purple haze, oh many, many dog-ears ago. But in a forum like this, EA, it is pretty tough to get by with dare I say superficiality.
The historical inauthencity of your argument is what irks me. Verbal Remedy has started a game counting how fast folks "Hitlerize" an argument. Well, you lost. You did it in 6, someone else beat you to it by getting there in 4.
You appear to term all who killed in the name of religion as fanatics and all who killed with overweening self regard (reminds me more of Malvolio than Pol Pot, but that might be just me) as Hard Atheists. Huh? This is the first I heard Pol Pot went around butchering in the name of NO G*D, unlike those that you correctly mention as butchering in the name of G*D.
And if you want to term them all fanatics, that pretty much takes out all of Western religious belief for twenty centuries or so. For, my dear EA, it is not just the egregious cases you cite, it's the rest of the kit and caboodle that damns religion (thus my earlier charge of superficiality). Virtually all of colonialism, from the time Pope Alexander VI carved up the "heathen" world in the 15th century between the Portugese and Spaniards has had a religious basis, buttress, backstop. How many "natives" were killed? Exploited, abused, enslaved? The missionaries hand-in-hand with the soldiery, the political cadres and of course the merchant/capital classes were not just complicit, but often, the leaders in this historic misappropriation of lands, goods, people's very identities? All fanatics?
So why should I choose to follow these beliefs than some other? A pox on all their houses, say I -- there'll be no more cakes and ale for me wherever I go from here.
WOOF
I actually have a great deal of respect for people of faith like yours; it's lovely and poetic and seems--to me at least--to add a certain sheen and significance to the hardships life offers that I find very lovely, even if I cannot share in it. I don't fear your faith, or worry that we cannot get along, that one side negates the existance of the other. You believe, I do not, but we both still see wonderful things, everywhere we look. I'm totally okay with that.
Edgar, there's no dancing around the fact that I emphatically do not believe in a higher power, or a creator, or anything even remotely resembling either thing. I think we are magnificent (or perhaps not so magnificent--who knows what else is out there?) accidents of nature, out here on our own. And this idea has shaped my value system, set my moral compass, defined (very literally) how I live my life since my late teens.
Your suggestion that I am somehow "less than" your absolute definition of athiesm because I am not a monster is illogical. Again, I do not believe, in any way, in a higher power. That's the very definition of an athiest. From my athiesm I draw my believe that every human life on this planet is as valuable as my own, and that of my children. From that conclusion, I am logically drawn to support the equal human rights, as much as I can, of everyone on this planet. I am glad that you agree, but I don't see how this compassionate viewpoint negates my standing as an athiest.
You're going to have to give here. If your quarrel is with sociopaths who also happen to be athiests, say so. There are, as many have pointed out, a vast number of faithful sociopaths of every fainth and denomination on the planet. (Why, even Buddhists have waged bloody wars!)
But you can't lump all athiests into one sociopathic pile.
My position is that an absolutist is not fit to be a positive, productive leader of a nation. By absolutist, I mean someone who is so firmly entrenched in his/her belief in the tenants of a particular religious faith or the complete absence of God that he/she is unwilling to consider other possibilities in that realm. An absolutist position, in my opinion, represents a dangerous hubris—a self-aggrandizing mentality. These are not qualities I would seek in a leader. I never said that all terrible leaders were either fanatics or hard atheists. I do contend that nearly all murderous leaders had an inflated sense of self-importance—a trait that I believe is more common in those with absolutist theist/atheist beliefs.
Rance, I admitted in an earlier comment on this thread that I misspoke when I said I was “not judging anyone.” I would edit the original post, but that doesn’t really seem fair at this point. I am not trying to make enemies. Your staunch refusal to even engage in some sort of dialogue other than “you’re wrong” does nothing but validate my general distaste for hard atheists.
If I wrote as eloquently and intelligently as Liz, I might not be facing such a reaction. Her points do not completely mesh with mine, but she does a much better job defining atheism as a belief over on Rob’s blog.
The crux of my entire argument here, on Sandra’s blog and over on Rob’s blog is that those unwilling to remain open to differing views in the realm of faith are not the type of people that I would want to lead the country.
I dunno about that, perhaps you just chose a bad viewpoint to try to explain.
My position is that an absolutist is not fit to be a positive, productive leader of a nation.
That might be unexceptionable if you tied "absolutism" to those beliefs that are actually necessary for governance, especially in a constitutionally demarcated system of government like the US.
How does a litmus test for belief in G*d come into this? And, in fact, it seems to me, you are using "absolutism" merely as a shibboleth, a slogan, to cover this one specific matter: religious belief or disbelief.
One could argue that an absolutist for human rights, an absolutist for children's education, an absolutist against slavery, an absolutist against violation of our bodies, an absolutist against violation of our borders even, might be very fit to govern our nation under the auspices of our Constitution.
And it's too easy a piece to argue that all the sins of history committed under the direct fiat of religion were done by extremists. They were sanctioned by mainstream religious belief: the banality of evil was not confined to Nazi Germany.
So I'll take the other side of the trade, as I'd said to ole Pascal when he asked me.
You seem like a good guy. Good post, to at least get people talking openly. Good luck to you.
WOOF
At any rate, I respect your opinion, but that's all my atheism is, as well - my opinion. I consider myself a very moral person. I went to church every week growing up, and often still go, I just don't believe there is a god.
"Helen, I hate to burst Pascal's balloon, but living as if you believe in God when you really don't won't cut it. . . Good works alone will not get you through the Gates, it also requires faith.
I don't think I could respect a deity who was fooled by counterfeit belief, even assuming that that deity exists."
I was raised to think that believing in God was necessary so that he wouldn't get mad and smite me, and send me through the "bad" Gates in the end. Kind of like God was a big, abusive boyfriend in the sky who was going to make damn well sure I loved him, even if he had to kill me to do it. I still have flashes of that old thinking, which drove me to flirt with atheism over the course of my life.
I have changed my ideas about God.
I no longer think there's any such thing as "meeting" God at the end of this earthly life when I pass through "the Gates." You can't "meet" someone you've already met. I meet God every day in you, and everyone else I meet. I speak to God every day, too, I just don't do it in church, or on street corners where passers-by can hear.
I'm not worried about passing the "faith test" anymore. I take that test every day and how well I do on it determines the kind of life I have. And living "as if" there's a God simply makes my life better in the here and now. Faith follows actions, sometimes. Sometimes it is expressed in action.
The Tinkerbell theory is good, as far as it goes. But what I think is that faith without works really is dead.
I don't think I've heard much about works without faith.
Thank you thoughtful and considerate answer. Prace out.
What about good, old fashioned regular Zionists? Zionists are hard liners in and of themselves. That's redundant and it goes without saying.
I'm an agnostic. That puts me firmly, smack dab in the middle between the two. Therefore, you (meaning both believer and non believers alike) are both wrong.
It is as arrogant of you non-believers to assume that there is no god as it is to assume that there is one. I would rather have a leader who would stand up and say, "I don't know", rather than pander to those of you who believe there is one, or one that claims there is not.
The onus is on both of you to prove your case. If there is a god, prove it? If there is no god, prove that. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence supporting either position. Therefore, you are both wrong.
Considering facts being discovered about various past Chinese leaders I suggest that Uncle Joe may be in danger on losing his title. There also appear to be a number of devout beleivers who are in the running for the title.
Where is it written that hard atheists do not beleive in compromise of any sort?
A hard-line evangelest has been in office for the past 6 years, preceeded by Reagan who I understand was also borne-again.
I am with you. I see hard atheism and hard line belief systems as being the opposite ends of the spectrum. People in either position are suspect . No normal person can ever be completely free of moments when they question their own views!
It is a sad commentary that intangibles such as belief systems are the most important consideration when choosing the most powerful man or woman in the world!
That's not too difficult to understand--is it? I think you have no more evidence to show atheists are narcissistic than theists, which is how I interpret you. I think when one talks about this subject especially they're better off using "I" statements and referring to their own experience, otherwise I think they are projecting and are talking to others when they should be talking to themselves.
Personally, I don't trust ideologues of any persuasion because I used to be one myself, and it was a cover meant to defend myself from the traumas of my childhood.
That's not too difficult to understand--is it? I think you have no more evidence to show atheists are narcissistic than theists, which is how I interpret you. I think when one talks about this subject especially they're better off using "I" statements and referring to their own experience, otherwise I think they are projecting and are talking to others when they should be talking to themselves.
Personally, I don't trust ideologues of any persuasion because I used to be one myself, and it was a cover meant to defend myself from the traumas of my childhood.
The second sentence in the above quote makes no sense. Some people look at the evidence when trying to ascertain whether there is a God. Others rely on tradition, centuries of history, and the beliefs of their families and neighbors. Some people look at all of the above factors.
What does "self-importance" have to do with anything? Your "epitome of self-importance" sentence is a common critique of religious bigots who assert that people who don't believe what they believe are selfish, bad people.
There is NO evidence that non-believers are more selfish or egomaniacal than believers. Millions of non-believers get involved in their communities.
If religious people are inspired to get involved in their communities because of their religion, that's great. But please don't ignore the efforts of non-religious people who are also concerned about their fellow citizens.
Shalom,
ZWrite
You write, "I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists. "
Actually, the beliefs of religious extremists are dangerous neither because they are unflinching nor because they are prideful. Everyone is entitled to be just as adamant and self-righteous as they like, so long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others. History supplies no shortage of examples of zealots who harmed no one (or no one but themselves).
Why is it impossible to be a humble person (in the face of such forces as nature and randomness) who believes in morality because it is the right thing to do, without agreeing that there is enough evidence to support the existence of a God?
By the way, and not that this should matter, you might be interested to know that I am not an atheist, or even an agnostic.
"The crux of my entire argument here, on Sandra’s blog and over on Rob’s blog is that those unwilling to remain open to differing views in the realm of faith are not the type of people that I would want to lead the country"
How does adopting the prevailing conventional beliefs of Christianity evidence openness to "differing views in the realm of faith"?
If anything atheists are far more open to differing views because they have no dog in the faith fight. Moreover, atheists generally look to reality and proof to justify their beliefs. Thus, they are open to proofs of "God" whenever such may be forthcoming. Once a non-rational "faith" has been adopted, people have a basis to deny what proof reason may offer on the issue.
Religious belief, by definition, places faith in the unproven existence of the supernatural. There is no evidence to support these beliefs, yet religious folks remain convinced that such things exist and seem to be close-minded to the rational deduction that atheists promote.
Atheism, on the other hand, is very open minded. If evidence for a supernatural deity exists; let's do some scientific analysis of that evidence. If it holds up to scrutiny, I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. That's what science is all about; adjusting your theories based on the evidence.
Until we have an atheist as President, we won’t have a leader who believes the truth.
Atheism - "I don't believe in God."
'Hard Atheism' - "There is no God."
To 'know' there is no God seems to me absurd hubris, but that's my belief. :) It is pointless to argue when the basic rules of the argument are not agreed on. The lack of evidence of God does nothing to disprove God. If as many of the religious feel, God demands/expects/rewards faith wouldn't God need to create a world with room for belief? It seems to me that there would be no evidence.
'Nuff said. I'll bet this same station carries Rush Limbaugh, James Dodson, Liberty Talk Radio, and all the other religious bigots who desecrate the PUBLIC airwaves with their hate-filled blather.
A great source of dispassionate, reasoned discourse you cite there, Edgar. At least you give a nodding admission that these are all "supposed experts ". Care to give us their call letters so we can look at their air log (if they bother to keep one)?
Now that I got that off my chest:
You are making some assertions that have no basis in fact. What you are doing, actually, is making a supposition, and then finding arguments or "facts" to support it.
For instance, you seem to argue that "hard" atheists just woke up one day and decided they didn't believe in/there was no god, as though there were no thought process involved, and that therefore they have "closed minds." What you are missing, is that many atheists (most, I would guess), went through the decision-making process over years of their lives, finally concluding that for them, God just doesn't make sense. This is no sillier or more egotistical than someone looking at the religion they were born into, or other religions, and the world around him, and concluding there MUST be a God. It is like movies, OK? Two people can go to the same movie: One loves it, one hates it, and when they describe it, it sounds like they saw two different movies. Same movie, different perceptions and reactions. It doesn't mean that either one of them had a "closed mind" when they entered the theater, or that one is inherently "right" and the other is inherently "wrong."
I remember vividly telling my teachers, in parochial (Lutheran) school, that certain things in the bible just didn't make any sense to me. We were required to memorize bible verses, and I would point out verses that were clearly contradicting each other, and ask how they could both then be the word of God? I also had a real problem with how "thou shalt have no other gods before me" turned into "I am the ONLY god." I questioned pretty much everything and told several of them that it sounded like a myth to me. My teachers did not like this very much.
I feel pretty much the same about Christianity as I do any other religion: religion is a fable, made up by mankind to explain things he doesn't understand, such as falling stars, pain, suffering, good fortune, lightning and thunder, fire, and love. Rules of the religion are frequently based on specific, local issues--e.g., don't eat pigs, they're unclean (because people got sick and died when they ate pork contaminated with trichinosis). Minoring in cultural anthropology, with near-minors in comparative religions and psychology, did nothing to change my opinion of this. In fact, historical perspective gave it less credibility for me: Monotheism of the type that sprang up in the Middle East is male-centric, patriarchal, and women are seen as lesser, inferior, and/or unclean people. Judaism arose in an area in which fertility cults had predominated; fertility cults are, by and large, woman-centric, and much more egalitarian than Judaism etc. So, we have Eve (matriarch) leading Adam (patriarch) astray with the help of a snake (phallic symbol in many fertility cults). Hm, not too obvious, eh?
Every culture in the world has at least one spiritual belief system. Each is 100% convinced that theirs is the *best* religion (although not all religions are as adamant about rejecting other gods as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic believe system is). Most Americans would probably laugh if someone said she was dedicating her life to the worship of Dionysius; but how is that any different than a woman entering a nunnery? They sound equally silly and valid to me.
Finally, mass murderers of the ilk of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc etc etc, are not mass murderers because they are religious absolutists, on either end. They are mass murderers because they are sociopaths (see here for a good description: http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html) and megalomaniacs (good description here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-megalomania.htm). Their religion, or lack of it, is secondary to their feelings that they must have total power and control, and that nothing else is as important as them/their great plans. Many of them create around themselves a cult of personality. This doesn't just apply to mass murderers and dictators; look at cult leaders such as Jones, Koresh, and Jeffs.
You might also want to take a look at your complaint that "hard" atheists have closed their minds to discussion, and your perceived insistence that they believe they are right, and compare that to your close-mindedness about the trustworthiness of atheists, and the general air of conviction of many, if not most, religious people that they have found the Truth.
Your arguments don't stand up.
And hey Woof Man, they used typography like that because it was considered that the name of god was too sacred to be said aloud. By extension, to add vowels to the written name of god (YHVH) was forbidden, because that would then make it possible for someone to correctly pronounce the name of god, and the whole point of the YHVH is that it makes it impossible to say the name of god. It's also a sign of respect, in that it makes it impossible to accidentally erase one of the names of god (same for l*rd). Plus it's a usenet thing to avoid implying belief in god, or a god, or whatever. But then, I'm pretty sure you already knew that, you smart puppy you. ;)
Btw, I can't believe I missed the *tenant* bit. That should have been a dead giveaway, and we could have saved our collective breaths.
And a shout out to Wayne for discovering the source of this rather addled polemic.
WOOF
Sandman, thanks for stopping by—your points are well taken. I already agree with two key components of your argument:
1. Morality is not confined to belief in a higher power. Atheists can be and often are enviably moral people. Many atheists display a morality that should be envied by believers. Belief and morality are not bound together exclusively, in my view.
2: I agree that people are naturally more inclined to believe or dismiss the notion of a higher power. I readily admit that I am more closely aligned with the former.
I’m glad that you took the time to read the comments, because this discourse has helped me better shape my language to reflect my actual stance.
What I find dangerous about hard atheists in power is their unwillingness to compromise on an issue that carries such weight with so many human beings under their direction. An uncompromising believer in a certain religious faith is almost as dangerous as a hard atheist in this regard. The only reason I think that a hard atheist represents heightened peril (when in power) is because the hard atheist has a belief structure that most of us are unfamiliar with. The uncompromising believer remains loyal to tenants that we are or can be familiar with. (Thus, we know what to expect and can counter).
And one more time: I am not defending or advocating religion in any way or even the concept of belief. I am criticizing the refusal to doubt. Further, I am much more concerned with the refusal of a potentially powerful leader to doubt in the realm of atheism/theism.
Wayne, the radio station (WRFG) is called Radio Free Georgia. It is a community station and it does not carry anything even resembling right wing agitprops. It’s syndicated programming includes “Democracy Now! With Amy Goodman” and “Hard Knocks Radio” out of Oakland. WRFG is a great station and I try to listen to it daily, especially at the 5:00 p.m. hour (when Amy Goodman comes on).
http://www.fancast.com/tv/Bones/94501/859445713/The-Finger-in-the-Nest/videos
And don't worry, next time it'll be you catching the spelling 'foe paw' and me saying, "huh? Ah man, how'd I miss that?!" :D
Nothing about my spiritual beliefs requires anything of anyone else. Nothing about anyone’s lack of spiritual practice has any impact on me. There's nothing wrong here. I don't blame life's blessings or challenges on anything outside myself, though as we all know, shit does happen. If we are living a life of integrity we do look to see what our own part is in what happens. It helps to notice. Its more efficient, more effective, keeps us from stepping in the same holes over and over again. Oddly enough, a spiritual or religious life is pretty much that in a nutshell. Some people are self-directed and find a path that works with that kind of personality; and some people are afraid of themselves and look for a path where someone will tell them what to do, when to do it and with what frequency. These folks are relieved of responsibility for the quality of their own lives. They can always credit or curse something outside themselves.
I believe that God is all there is, so I am not worried about these particular questions, I have other questions of my own that actually have some impact on my life and those I love.
Later in life, I considered myself to be an agnostic, which I interpreted as a scientific belief that there was insufficient evidence for the existence of a god.
Since then, I have moved on to becoming an atheist in the sense that I cannot believe that it is possible for there to be a God, which would make me a "hard atheist" in your terms.
The reason for this change is that I cannot see a reason for the existence of a God or higher power, etc., unless such entity is THE CREATOR--I think that if you believe in a God, you have to believe that he/she/it created man, or, at least, created the laws of science that led to man.
And that's why I cannot believe in a god. You see, I cannot bring myself to believe that any intelligent being would be cruel enough to have created the human body (or the structure of genetic coding that led to the human body).
I agree with sandman that you need to define your terms more concretely as the discussion has been slithering about somewhat. It would be most useful if you could be more concrete about your concept of a higher power and explain where you got it from. What are the attributes of this higher power? Does the source of your belief in a higher power provide any justification for the existence of evil in this world as exemplified by the likes of Pol Pot and Stalin?
You use the word ‘trust’. I think that is the most essential concept for all of us as we go about our daily lives.
You also use the word ‘power’ in several contexts.
We do not need to look as far as ‘monsters’ like Stalin and Pol Pot to find examples of broken trust and egotistical abuse of power.
Let us examine the case of the Catholic Church in Ireland. No doubt many saintly individuals chose to become priests or nuns because of a genuine devotion to that ‘higher power’ and a desire to help humanity. The religious life could be a lonely one. Marriage was not allowed and sexual abstinence was compulsory. Rural Ireland was sparsely populated and bleak.
Unfortunately, this world is sparsely populated with saints. Recruits were not always the brightest or the best. Many chose the religious life as a career option. Many chose it because of tradition or family expectations. Some chose it because they did not know what else to do.
Some chose it because of the power it gave them.
Some enjoyed being the vicarious representative of that ‘higher power’ in Ballymanure in County Bogland, or wherever, and used their own petty power to feed their own egos and to exploit for selfish purposes those with less power. Father
Sean Fortune will serve as an example. Fortune killed himself in March 1999, after battling for four years against being hauled before a court to answer for his child abuse crimes and embezzlement. ‘He had ways of finding out about people, recognising weakness and family things that people preferred to keep quiet,’ said one parishioner. ‘His policy was to divide and conquer and he was the most incredible bully.’ Fortune came to Wexford penniless but left the parish with all the appearances of a man who had made a lot of money. As well as facing 20 child sex abuse charges brought by the police, Fortune was also under investigation in Northern Ireland. His bishop, Brendan Comiskey, was forced to resign because he covered up Fortune’s crimes. Suspicions about him were raised in Belfast and he was transferred to Wexford. The Church followed this pattern many times, shipping priests from one parish to another without stopping their abuses.
This kind of abuse and betrayal of trust was scaled up from parish level to state level, from the petty dictatorship of a parish priest up to the church as the foremost institution in the nation telling the elected government what to do. Ireland used to be a totalitarian state run by the Catholic Church and corrupt and venal politicians. The church could tolerate the gombeen men’s financial dishonesty as long as politicians ensured that Holy Ireland, Land of Saints and Scholars could be free of dirty books (ensuring that most of the nation’s literary geniuses had to go into exile), contraception and abortion.
While a strict puritanical sex code was imposed officially, sexual abuse of children was endemic among the priesthood. Edgar dares someone to use the ‘h’ word. Here it comes, but not directed at you personally, Edgar, – there was a lot of hypocrisy and abuse of trust, abuse of power.
In my infant years, I was educated by nuns and priests but was never the victim of sexual abuse or anything more than minor physical violence. There was a lot of mental cruelty and arrogant bullying by ignorant people who drew their strength and power from the support of that invisible ‘higher power’. (John Leonard’s memory of Sister Mary Cabrini strikes a chord. For me it was Sister Theresa grinding her bony knuckles into my neck and intoning, ‘The only thing certain in this life is that you’re going to die’. Very true, of course, but not something a mixed infant wants to think about.)
In my working life, I was for a time working in the field of child protection. The heartbreaking thing was that vulnerable, innocent children might be abused by their parents and taken away by the authorities and further abused by the professionals who were paid to care for them and protect them. That is a horrific betrayal of trust.
I once attended a meeting at the Home Office in London also attended by representatives of the Faithfull Foundation. The Foundation provides psychotherapy for pedophiles. I discovered that British pedophiles couldn’t get treatment because all the places were taken up by Irish priests whose treatment was paid for by the Catholic Church.
The sex abuse scandal has bankrupted the Church in Ireland, USA and Australia. It has ended the reign of the Church as a power in the state in Ireland. Few Irish people trust the Church anymore. Very few new recruits to the priesthood are coming forward.
Some might argue that this is a bad thing because what used to be a placid sort of a country (all the badness going on behind closed doors) is now riven with gangland killings, drug addiction, binge drinking, trafficked Eastern European prostitutes and lap-dancing clubs.
‘I have always and will continue to pick candidates based on their beliefs. Those beliefs include a strong preference to diplomacy over war and a dedication to the notion that it is our society’s moral responsibility to provide universally affordable healthcare to the entire population.’
That is very commendable and something even a ‘hard atheist’ could go along with. However, how do you ascertain what a politician’s ’beliefs’ are? They usually have policies resulting from endless trimming and compromise rather than beliefs in the normal sense of the term. Pork and earmarks are usually more important to them than beliefs.
You are saying something uncontroversial when you say that you would not choose to vote for an atheist as president. That is, of course, your choice, however good or bad your reasons. I doubt that you would get the chance to vote for anyone coming out of the closet as an atheist. It seems to be compulsory for Christians only to apply for the job.
Here in Sri Lanka, because of the system of proportional representation, there is very rarely a clear majority in parliament for any one party. Coalitions have to be formed; people cross from one party to another. Parties and individuals join and leave the ruling coalition. In the nation as a whole, Buddhists are in the majority, there is a large Hindu minority and significant numbers of Muslims and Christians. There are several Buddhist monks sitting in parliament as members of the JHU party. There are various Muslim parties. Rauf Hakeem, leader of the SLMC, drifts in and out of government as alliances shift in the wind. Hakeem said in an interview: ‘The subject of political morality is a relative thing. The current electoral system does not give any government the confidence to try and deliver upon the commitments made during the polls.
I am glad I don’t have a vote! Who could one trust?
It is rather a ‘hard’ position to take to say you could not trust someone who has made a principled judgment that there is no higher power. How is someone’s personal choice on such a matter making them unworthy of your trust? Your reason for withholding your trust is that people who do not believe in a higher power are prideful and dangerous and this makes them unwilling to compromise or listen to varying points of view. Your evidence to support this view is that people like Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists and killed a lot of people. You are not likely to meet many people like that as you go about your daily round, so don’t be so miserly with your trust.
Just after reading your post I saw a letter in the Guardian Weekly: ‘if atheism is in itself a religious belief, then surely not collecting stamps is a hobby.
As a Catholic adolescent, I was fond of the works of GK Chesterton. These days I find his windy paradoxes less endearing. He is often quoted as saying, ‘When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.’ Atheists can also believe in leading an ethical life and following the golden rule because they feel better that way not because some avenging god will punish them if they misbehave.
Like lalucas I enjoy the music and traditions of many religions. I envy those who have the community of a church to support them and give them comfort. However, Churches are not the only means of comfort and support and community. I have very deep respect for lalucas’s point of view when she says that she sees the mark of a creator in everything and has difficulty in accepting that the wonder of creation happened by accident. You are a poet, Lisa! She does not believe in a punishing God or support the exclusivity and controlling by fear factors all religions seem to thrive on. That punishing aspect of religion is much harder than any atheism. I like EO Wilson’s phrase ‘the delicate web of reciprocity’.
Edgar, I was thinking about your comment that you couldn't vote for someone who lives without doubt, absolutely confident in their certitude. I guess you're saying you couldn't vote for a fundamentalist of either godly or godless stripe. I. I'm with you. If a "hard atheist" is the godless equivalent of the radical religionist, then I wouldn't vote for one either. How about a..."soft atheist"? If a soft atheist is an atheist with room for doubt, is that the same as an agnostic - someone who says the existence of God is unknowable? What then is a religious person who reserves room for doubt? An agnostic? I'll have to admit, though, that in my experience, most religious believers don't have much room for doubt (although my experience is mostly with a fairly strict southern brand of old-time religion). I've gotten off track. Would you vote for a soft atheist/agnostic? And, as someone has said, is an agnostic just an atheist without balls?
Thanks for setting me straight!