Ken Schram from KOMO gave my name to a producer from Bill O’Reilly’s show who was looking for someone to come on tonight and defend the sign put up by atheists near the nativity scene in the state capitol. The producer added that O’Reilly wanted to “broaden the discussion out to include observations about Washington being a very liberal state.” Uh-huh. I declined and when the producer asked if I could suggest someone who might want to come on, I gave him your name Goldy.
O’Reilly shredded me when he had me on his show about my book, Skipping Toward Gomorrah, back in 2002. But that’s not the reason I declined. I’d never watched the O’Reilly Factor before I went on, and I had no idea what I was in for. I have some idea now. And while game and braced for the occasional cable news shout fest—thanks in large part to that 2002 shredding—I’m not feeling it today. I also turned down an invite to come back on CNN this week for another go-round with a professional Christian hater.
I’m taking December off from cable news shout fests—’tis the season, peace on earth, good will toward men, and like that.
UPDATE: I will be on Michael Medved’s radio show today to talk about gay people adopting children. Medved’s producer tells me that Medved “comes down in the middle” on this issue. I’m don’t see a “middle” to come down in with this issue. Either gay people can adopt or they can’t. How do you split the difference? Gay people can only adopt half a child? Like a time-share condo? I’ll find out today at 2 PM.
Link to a video of the 2002 ass-whipping anyone?
good on you dan. why contribute to o’reilly’s ratings, anyway? let him rant at the studio staff.
You could take him, Dan. I would love to see Bill get told by big gay Dan.
Atheism is a religion. And while organized atheism hasn’t been responsible for anywhere near as many campaigns of violence and murder as the religions of the book, the fact that it has been responsible for any is proof that it isn’t some magical cure-all for the problems of religion.
No belief system is the answer. The answer is holding all belief systems to standards of liberty, equality, and justice and tolerating those that pass the test.
I think I would have passed on that one too. I don’t know why, but that sign just made me cringe, and I’m as non-religious as you can be. I don’t think I feel strongly enough about the sign to go on national TV and defend it, particularly against O’Reilly.
You were right, Dan. Dialog is good, but O’Reilly isn’t dialog. You’re not reaching an audience that wants to understand. And O’Reilly himself is nothing but a thug, a bully with a loud voice and a dim mind. His show is withering; let him die without you.
as much as i would love to see you on the teevee, i think it was logical to pass on that one. no need to subject yourself to that angry man’s hate.
plus, that atheist sign isn’t worth fighting for. As far as I’m concerned, the fundamental tenet of atheism is a disbelief in god, not asshattery towards those who do believe in a god or gods.
Funny, Laurel. I’ve looked at about half a dozen dictionary definitions for “religion” and I can’t find a single one that lists “NOT believing in a supernatural or supreme being” or “NOT believing in the values and practices of a spiritual leader” as a qualification.
Atheism in and of itself is not responsible for a single human death, to my knowledge. Despotic regimes that promoted atheism as part of a much broader socio-political philosophy, such as Stalinism or Maoism, is another matter entirely, but the two should not be confused as being equivalent.
While all Stalinists may be Atheists, not all Atheists are Stalinists, and so-forth.
Dan Savage, you kicked nationally-televised ass all over November… what are you going to do now???
Having no belief system is a religion. And while organized systems of non-belief haven’t been responsible for anywhere near as many campaigns of violence and murder as the religions of the book, the fact that it has been responsible for any is proof that it isn’t some magical cure-all for the problems of religion.
Not never no belief system is the answer. The answer is holding all belief systems and non-belief systems and systems of disbelief in non-belief to standards of liberty (without actually believing in liberty), equality (without actually believing in equality), and justice (without actually believing in justice) and tolerating those that pass the test.
Those that fail the test shall be burned.
@4 Atheism is not a religion. It has no tenets, dogma, or structure. There’s no official text of Atheism. It doesn’t need to be practiced. There’s no organization, and no expected behavior or observances.
So what are you talking about? It’s inherently irreligious. That’s like saying ‘not playing sports is a sport itself.’ Or ‘not doing heroin is its own form of addiction.’ What you said is meaningless and poorly thought out.
To piggyback on COMTE’s comment, I think that atheism is certainly an epistemic filter of sorts, a foundational belief or presupposition that our senses are reliable and the lack of sensory evidence for deity has a reasonable explanation (i.e, the absence, or at least extreme unlikelihood, of the existence of gods). So it has elements of faith . . . but its lack of ritual or binding normative standards beyond mere non-belief in deity keep it from being a religion proper.
I always wondered why anybody with an opinion that differs from O’Reilly’s would go on that show. His minions control the microphone volume and anybody who starts to get any traction taking an opposing view is immediately shouted down. It’s a debate in the same way that pro wrestling is a sport.
Good for you Dan!
I am glad to see you will be spending more time at home with the fam. They appreciate it I am sure!
If all liberals would just shun Bill O’Reilly, his ratings would drop and he’d be gone in a few months. Watching him berate people they don’t agree with is the entire point of the show for his fans.
I agree with Explorer @10, Dan was great throughout November. The problem with O’Reilly is that he controls the conversation on his show. You can take him when you have a moderator because the moderate can make him shut up. On his show, the liberal just gets yelled at the whole interview and the right wing viewers orgasm.
If Dan turned down Anderson Cooper, he is a fool. If he turned down random CNN person, I will give him a pass.
@13, Atheism has ‘elements of faith’? How so? Do you have faith that the earth is not on the back of a turtle? Do you have faith that Don Knotts wasn’t the 16th President, or that Cleopatra wasn’t, or that Mel Gibson wasn’t?
There are infinite things to *not* believe. It doesn’t take faith to not believe them. The only thing that separates the lack of belief in god, from the lack of belief in Santa is the fact that more people believe in god than Santa. That’s it… Lack of belief is *passive* and belief is *active*…
DAN – tell him over and over and over that the State of Wa. has had gay adoption for 25 years – no regs prohibiting from DSHS ……. and the sky is till blue …. we are a test case for the lack of dire consequence … use it
the right wing is massing on adoption…. need to get ready
Square Peg Concerts/18.12
Comments
Previewing Your Comment
Re: Expect a Call, Goldy
I’m glad you’re taking time off from cable news. I’ve been really afraid that you were falling into the same exact pattern as the rest of the cable news crowd as I see the same pattern in your columns–looking for the issues and responses that are going to get a rise from the reader and really don’t like your style because of it.
What we really need are levelheaded people much like our president-elect. I have observed that you do know how to kiss the asses of the host when they want you on, but I see such a potential of you just being another Ann Coulter when you get more into your element, just take a look at your “advice” column.
I had been looking at some old issues and saw some comments on Ann Coulter, here’s a good one: “Ann Coulter is the grown-up, bitter version of the kind of pretty, but really bitchy junior high school girl that made fun of people with acne or glasses. Shouldn’t we be beyond that as a society? What happened to the grown-ups?” This is exactly what you sound like when you’re on your home turf, which is why you’re actually having a divisive effect on some segments of the gay community–if I had more time, I’d address how most of the HIV prevention community sees you. Your style here is not about being informative, more for entertainment which is actually very dangerous when giving your advice. Then you go on TV and try to inform when they’re looking for sparks. I think you’d really benefit if you tried to strike some kind of balance, but I’m not sure that’s possible in your case.
Anyway, if you learn to not kow-tow when in the mainstream and also present information and interpretations of what someone is saying in your own paper, you may actually have a shot at being that gay spokesman that your less informed pundits see you as, and maybe not fuel for the fire of the senseless bickering that goes on all the time.
By the way, is the O’Reilly interview somewhere on YouTube? I looked and can’t find it. I’d really love to see O’Reilly tear you apart.
I like the atheist plaque. Most people in the US don’t even realize there’s an option to NOT believe ridiculous tales of a magic baby born 2000 years ago who got himself murdered to help you go to a cloudy wonderland when you “die” (wink wink, you don’t really die). The more exposure atheism gets, the better society will be. Dan isn’t going on the radio to defend his child’s existence to atheists, that’s for sure.
Dan doesn’t seem to be the type who would hit someone over the head with a chair, so I can see why he passed on appearing on O’Reilly’s show.
@18 what you describe is not a lack of belief but a surety in the nonexistance of. atheists are sure there’s no god, which IS a positive statement. And I’ve never been shown any definitive proof one way or the other, so I prefer to remain agnostic, which is more closely a lack of belief.
In any case, I’d feel like a real tool if I’d spent my entire life beating my chest about how there is no god only to meet one upon death. That’s every bit as arrogant and faith based as beating people over the head with brimstone and fire.
Randy: The “HIV prevention community” is an absurd collection of incompetent sociopaths. I’m proud to be held in low regard by lying, buck-passing, excuse-making, ineffectual asshats that do way more harm than good.
As for having a divisive effect on the gay community: the gay community isn’t all of one mind on any single issue. A gay person can’t hold an opinion, or express it, without “dividing” the gay community. Please.
Agnosticism is a cop out, and I truly believe it doesn’t exist at all. People who call themselves agnostic generally just don’t understand what it means to be atheist.
I am an atheist. I can never KNOW there is no god, but I can judge the probability that there is a god as being very low. I can never know for 100% that my yard is not filled with invisible unicorns, but I believe that is an unlikely scenario.
There are countless things in this universe that cold be true, or could take place. Quantum theory says that I could stand up, run as fast as I could toward the nearest wall, and there is a greater than 0% chance that I would pass through it. The odds are infinitesimally small though. Because of that, I believe that the wall is solid and I can’t walk through it.
Because the evidence to support the existence of a supreme being is quite lacking, and the logical hoops you have to jump through to conceive of such a being are so huge; I have concluded that the odds of such a being are so low that they may as well be zero.
If anyone ever says they are 100% without a doubt sure that there is no supreme being, they are just as deluded as anyone who says the opposite. If you read most modern atheist thinking, that is the conclusion that they come to. If evidence could be brought forth to show god exists, they would accept it. But just being open to evidence does not make one agnostic.
“I’m worried about being pwned by O’Reilly.”
UPDATE: but I’m not afraid of Medved. On the radio.
People who say atheism is a religion are far more arrogant about it than atheists. Seems like you can’t mention religion or atheism without some atheism-is-a-religion evangelist getting up in your face trying to convert you to their cherished doctrine. Atheists are just honest about believing there is no god, instead of pretending to be unsure about it to avoid an argument.
Going around calling everything a religion just because it shares one trait of a religion is an abuse of language. If you keep doing that, words soon don’t mean anything. Might as well say eating cheese is a religion because you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that cheese tastes good. But that’s not how words work.
Is there a word for someone who doesn’t believe in the Easter Bunny? Who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus? Do those people have “a religion”?”
And I love the idea of “organized atheism”.
@23-‘A surety in the nonexistence of.’ I don’t see it that way. I never give it any thought any more… I think the trick for me is that I have to be convinced of something, otherwise I remain ‘agnostic’ to it’s truthfulness, which, by default, means I disbelieve.
I suppose I don’t KNOW that there isn’t an M&M in my pocket. There’s always the possibility that even after I check, a devil could slip one in there, or one could fall out of a crow’s mouth right in to it… Would you consider yourself agnostic to the presence of M&M’s in your pocket? Would you define yourself by that agnosticism? Or the presence or absence of a skittle, or jolly-rancher, or an entire elephant in your pocket?
I’m not really ‘beating my chest’ about the presence or absence of anything. And ultimately, I wouldn’t feel like a REAL fool if there turned out to be a skittle in my pocket, or an M&M — but I would feel pleasantly surprised. I’d only really feel foolish if I shaped my life around that belief, or lack of belief.
If there turns out to be a god, I imagine he’d be the type to punish those who believed in him, since he gave us all brains, and some refused to use those gifts.
Dan, you should never, EVER feel obligated to go through that again. While you shone very brightly indeed in the shout-fest with Tony Perkins on CNN (and have elevated yourself to “gay hero” status in my eyes), I can imagine that it wasn’t a pleasant experience at all. You don’t need that kind of stress in your life. And if the O’Reilly show has to scramble to find someone, well, boo-freakin’-hoo!
“I’m proud to be held in low regard by lying, buck-passing, excuse-making, ineffectual asshats that do way more harm than good”
Gee Dan, I could not have asked for a better example; divisive and bitchy too. It’s almost poetic how you just proved my point.
I’m just not sure how you think you’re any different than the conservatives who you try to combat.
Dan, you are right to pass on O’Reilly.
On Anderson Cooper’s show (and other news shows), there was at least some chance of a debate, and some possibility of making your point to viewers.
Not so with Bill O’Reilly. His loyal audience isn’t interested in your views. O’Reilly certainly isn’t interested in your views; he just wants to use you as an excuse to yell and shout at a homo on the air. There is little or no chance that you would change a single mind by going on air with O’Reilly. He is a bully and an ass. Why subject yourself to that for no reason? Why feed his ego? Why be a tool for his audience of blithering idiots?
Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. a-theist… without theism.
Atheism is saying that you’ve looked at all the evidence, and it doesn’t convince you that there’s a god. I’m not POSITIVE there’s no god, I’m not 100% sure, but the evidence definitely points me in that direction. Agnostics, on the other hand, are sort of not saying anything. It’s like they’ve looked at the evidence and still can’t decide if it’s more likely that god exists or not.
A world without religion would still have plenty of wars and other issues (race/gender/age/etc. discrimination anyone?) but religion does do one major bad thing of making people less interested and involved in their life because they’re only concerned with the supposed afterlife. A person who thinks they’re going to some beautiful heaven is much more likely to take this life for granted than someone who thinks this life is all you get. An atheist isn’t going to fly a plane into a building thinking they’re going to get honeyed virgins in the next world.
Some people believe everything they’re told and some people don’t. To me, religion is like reading a National Enquirer tabloid. It’s the scaremongering and genocide that forces people to believe. It’s the fear of the after life that forces people to think one way or the other. I have plenty of reason to not be afraid of whatever comes after death, but being threatened by some desperate religion to try to get me on their side is not showing me proof of gods or the after life.
@29 – I see your point, and I think we disagree more on a semantic level than anything else. The existence of a skittle in my pocket is more or less disproved by the lack of pressure against my thigh. That said,
If you call someone who doesn’t on a daily basis think about the existence or nonexistence of god an atheist, then I’m an atheist – I just prefer the term agnostic because once you start talking about the supernatural, there’s really no way you can use statistics or math or any other rigorous method (a la 25) to say anything about probabilities, let alone sureties(?) one way or the other.
It’s like trying to divide an infinite number by another infinite and concluding that the answer is tiny but not zero.
Dang, Medved is such an idiot. Saw a weird debate once at the Westin where he tried to take on Garry Wills concerning whether Reagan was a giant idiot or not. Wills pulled apart Medved’s arguments like a kid dispassionately removing wings from a fly.
@35, Agreed.
I think you’ll find, Gilford (@18), that I have faith in many, if not most (if not damn near all) the same things most atheists do. I don’t call myself an atheist (I won’t bore you with my actual religious beliefs and convictions, unless you think they’re particularly relevant), but I don’t believe any more in a conscious, morally preoccupied, personal deity any more than I imagine you do.
Your examples are interesting, and I could probably wrap them in enough yards of rhetorical chicanery to baffle us beyond reckoning; suffice it to say that I have “faith” that the people who tell me that what we know of the earth’s orbit is true, or that the veracity of the media that assure me that Don Knotts was on Three’s Company (and therefore likely too young to have been the 16th president)–to say nothing of the information we have crediting someone else with that job–is solid.
But I’ve no interest in making a game of it. Obviously, our modern data-gathering methods (if not our data-disseminating methods) are more reliable than those of past epochs. On the other hand, much of what we know of history, we know via accounts only marginally more reliable (if at all) than, say, Vedic Scripture, the Nag Hammadi Library, or Judaic or Christian canon.
I’m as suspicious as you (probably more so, based on my own awareness of what a paranoid little git I am) of the notion that a god (or gods) once spoke freely with us, but would now hide themselves so carefully from our ever hungrier senses, let alone the notion that these deities would condemn us to eternal damnation for having the gall to believe these senses. Then again, some (Platinga, Van Til, even Descartes) would suggest that we can only trust these senses on the assumption that they were given to us to be reliable vessels for perceiving truth (even noted atheist David Hume all but concurred, suggesting that we can’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it did today, and that all certainty, repetition, or pattern is comforting illusion).
Now, I happen to trust that my senses are accurate (if not all that sharp; I really do need to upgrade the prescription on my glasses, and it wouldn’t hurt to get my hearing examined), but I have to admit, I do so on an act of faith. Even my understanding that they arose by way of evolution only tells me that they’re capable of perceiving food or threat, not that they have any grasp of “truth” or origin.
I have faith that being itself somehow arose without a designer or orchestrator, though we have nothing but the most convoluted speculation as to how; if nothing else, I find those still unsatisfying explanations less unlikely (as opposed to more likely) than the presumption that an essentially anthropomorphic, quasi-omnipotent being somehow preceded all things.
What I’m getting at is that where I think Descartes was wrong in thinking that only a benevolent God serves as a useful foundational belief, he was right in proposing that all epistemic systems–even empiricism and science–are predicated on foundational beliefs, not least of which is the trust we have that what we see, hear, touch, taste and feel is, if not truth itself, at least indicative of truth.
Dan, what was the deal with the letter Ashton said he wrote you on Bill Maher? Did you really reply with a nasty letter? What happened??? That was awkward.
Dan: Please ask Mr. Medved what specifically is his animus toward the gay. He has made it perfectly clear that he fears that his son will associate with gay kids – and what? rub off on him? As a Jew, Michael’s tacit tolerance of the gay is intolerable, not to mention inexplicable.
@38 “all epistemic systems–even empiricism and science–are predicated on foundational beliefs”
Absolutely. I’ve intentionally avoided promoting any alternate idea for that very reason. I think the points I made about god can be applied equally to empiricism and science, along with many other things.
I’d be equally disturbed by a ‘big-bang nativity,’ or even a ‘Hume day, or Darwin day’ where we all get together and reaffirm our belief in Carl Sagan or Nietzsche or something…
Nicely written post, by the way.
Medved was kind of an amusing writer early in his career, but I think is close to being off the deep end with people like O’Reilley and the rest of those folks.
Atheism categorically is not a religion. However, you can’t expect people who rely on their invisible friend to understand that. Not everyone wants to be told what to believe. Atheists have a wide range of beliefs.
@41 – Thanks, Gilford.
But you see what I’m getting at: Atheism is an assertion of faith in SOMETHING. Hell, getting out of bed in the morning and going to work is an assertion of faith in something. Not a religious act, necessarily, which is why I reject the notion that atheism constitutes a religion, but an act of faith.
It’s been posited that atheism is just the next step in our journey from polytheism–that we once had gods for everything from trees to thunderstorms, and that they disappeared once we knew where those things came from, how they grow or come into being, and that the sheer FACT of being, the origin of life and the universe, being the one thing we simply can’t seem to quantify, is the last mystery, and thus the locus of the last god. I think this is an intriguing prospect, but I also wonder if we’ll ever know enough about origin–about how being could either exist without beginning or emerge from non-being–to eliminate the need for deity, or the Tao, or Bruno’s eternal incorporeal . . .
Frankly, though, any excuse–religious or otherwise–to get the day off, to give and receive presents, to get together and have big meals and get drunk, stoned, loud, naked and/or funky can only be a good thing in my book. So I say we celebrate whatever days we can, decorate as we see fit, and advance!
@43
I don’t think that atheism is necessarily an assertion of faith in something.
MOST atheists are coming from a scientific perspective, and have some faith that rationality is epistemologically valuable. I don’t equate that type of faith with the faith that people hold in invisible daddy-in-the-sky gods, but that’s because I think rationality is more rational, which is circular, which is why it’s ultimately still a faith. If only a faith in the meaningfulness of my own existence and perception.
But anyway.
A person can not believe in gods for any reason or none at all and still be an atheist.
These, “atheism is a religion” people have a really awkwardly distended definition of religion.
And I agree with what somebody on this thread said about most agnostics actually being atheists with commitment issues. 😉 There’s this idea that atheists are CERTAIN that there’s no god, and agnostics are usually people who object to that. I think that this is a misunderstanding of atheism. I’m not certain that there is no god. I just don’t believe in one because I’ve seen no evidence or convincing arguments. If one shows up in my living room tonight and says hi, then I’ll wake up tomorrow morning a believer.
As for the display at the capitol building, only a complete moron could object to the idea that, if anybody gets to display their religious beliefs on public property, then EVERYbody does. Duh.
Shorter atheists: There is no god, you stupid morons!
I’m not sure why this message needs to be honored and shared.
@45
To quote the blowhard @44, “Only a complete moron could object to the idea that, if anybody gets to display their religious beliefs on public property, then EVERYbody does. Duh.”
Wouldn’t it be ironic if I died due to holding my breath waiting for your mythical dead people to come kick my ass?
Medved’s “middle” probably involves being half-gay. That is, fucking allowed only after midnight behind two sets of locked doors; no copies of Advocate, Freshmen, XY left lying around; no tasteful floral arrangements, ever; and in general, the Daddy’s-roommate-for-economic-reasons-only charade in full force at all times.
@45:
Because, for most thinking people, it presents a far more valid argument than: “There IS a god (even though I can’t present you with a single shred of evidence to support my belief), you stupid sinners!”
#45: Because the opposing message is “god is real and it says you should stone gays and oppress women or you’re going to burn in hell forever.”
violet @44 – I’ve rather purposefully avoided distending the definition of religion; I’ve tried to stick with faith. As you noted, faith in the meaningfulness of your own perception is a necessary prerequisite for your faith in rationality and science. The theist would see the same thing, but they would predicate that first supposition on the belief that someone created your perception to be both meaningful and reliable.
Personally, I’m willing to trust my perceptions because they’re what I’ve got, and trust the perceptions of others (in various degrees) because I have to assume they’ve gone through at least some of the processes that I have to validate perceptions (though, it should be said, it requires some faith in my senses to assume that those others exist at all). ;^)
By that token, no one is an atheist for “no reason at all.” They’ve at least made some guess as to the probability of the existence of deity; probability itself is, arguably, a measure of faith.
I’m a pantheist. I have no commitment issues, and if we look to the Taoists or Spinozans as examples of pantheistic thought, I don’t really have a god, either.
Agreed, though, as to the display at the capitol building, for precisely the reasons you cite.
Agnostic:ag-ˈnäs-tik noun
Etymology:
Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known.
It means “don’t know.”
Organized atheists don’t band together to promote atheism. They work to keep religion out of the government, and to stop government from suppressing religion as much as promoting it. They’re doing most sects a favor, by the way, since most of them don’t have a majority. And as Adam Smith observed, a free competition for believers has made the US a much more religious country than those whose lazy, bureaucratic clergy enjoy state sanction.
That a Dear Leader or a Chairman Mao eradiates any competing religion save the worship of themselves is the greatest gulf that separates organized atheists today from any of these supposedly atheistic despots.
@flamingbanjo:
Re-read the definition. Agnostic means “unknowable”, not “I don’t know”. There’s a difference, but most people assume your definition.
And FWIW, I consider myself an agnostic agnostic atheist. I *don’t know* whether or not the god question is *unknowable*, but given the evidence thus far, it seems extremely unlikely there is any kind of god. So I live my life as though there isn’t, hence *atheist*. Hooray for semantics! 🙂
@25: Perhaps you haven’t heard of militant agnosticism:
“I don’t know… and you don’t know either!”
I differentiate between “soft” and “hard” agnosticism – soft agnosticism is “I’m not sure”/”I don’t know” and hard agnosticism is “we can’t know”/”we aren’t able to know”/”it is impossible to prove/disprove either way”
Most hard agnostics are that way because of philosophical/logical reasons. Many soft agnostics probably don’t know and haven’t been able to make a commitment on the matter, but at least they’re honest.
I’m more of a militantly apathetic agnostic: “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
Wow, Dan Savage, the advice columnist who calls people names, makes ugly assumptions about motives, tells HIV negative guys to serosort without stressing how dangerous it is with someone you don’t know or the technical aspect of detecting HIV through testing including the window period, that’s the Dan Savage who calls others sociapaths and ineffectual? How’s that for the pot calling the kettle black? Of course, there are differences between disagreeing and continually pointing fingers in order to either cloud an issue or just make someone look bad, whether it’s sick pleasure or just ‘his way’.
No, not divisive in the least–(chuckle) But seriously, there’s some very real pathology going on there.
Randy, thanks so much, and I’m glad I ran into you when I did, but do you notice how he didn’t actually address your main points? Perhaps clouding the issue this time around.
It is too bad that someone who’s intelligent and at least has an occasional ability to be articulate is headed for the status of just sort of a punchline, such as the aforementioned Ann Coulter, who only a select few will follow. Then again, intelligence is a common factor in certain personality disorders.
What’s entertaining about this is that you were actually nicer in giving him advice than he is towards some of his own readers, I saw a lot of constructive criticism in there surpassing anything I’ve seen him do recently, but his reaction is one of those kneejerk hostile/defensive sort of things. You really hit a nerve there Randy,
Thanks!
Dan,
Is that what you call “shredded”?
By the way, I have little respect for these educators too, but have even less for you, at least they don’t have to resort to calling the people they’re teaching names.
@53: From the same (Merriam Webster) definition 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
I read it to encompass both those who are simply claiming they don’t know the answer and those who claim that certain answers are by definition not knowable.
I’m just pointing this out in response to all the “agnostics are just wimpy atheists” people.
Whatever the problem here, I’m sure it can be blamed on the black and latino voters of California.
I’m [sic] don’t see a “middle” to come down in with this issue.
It means they throw a die, and if it comes up even the adoption is allowed.
Since you’re taking the month off from cable, Dan, how about you take the time to have a conversation with LOCAL Queers of Color to discuss the whole Proposition 8 mess? No cameras, no Colbert, no Larry King, no Anderson Cooper, no Michael Medved, no Bill Maher. Just a planning session on how to move forward and reach out to communities we need in our coalition in order beat back such legislation, so we’re ready when the fight comes to Washington State, which it inevitably will.
Ya know, in the spirit of Good Will Toward Men (and Women).
LOL no way would Dan go for #59
His drag career ended decades ago. Queer involvement now involves showering $500 down upon the best float in the parade.
It seems like some people here are using “atheist” and “agnostic” as more-or-less interchangeable, or as different points on a continuum, when really they are not. “Theism” or “atheism” speak to belief or lack thereof, while “gnosticism” or “agnosticism” speak to knowledge or lack thereof. So, really, the two terms are not so much on a continuum as they are like the x and y axis on a graph, dividing people really into four different categories:
1. Gnostic Theists are people who believe there is some kind of deity in the universe and claim to know the nature of that deity. For the most part, these are the people practicing some kind of organized religion.
2. Agnostic Theists are people who believe there is some kind of deity in the universe but claim no knowledge of the nature of that deity. A lot of people I know who say things like “I’m more spiritual than religious” or consider themselves “pagan” probably fall into this category.
3. Agnostic Atheists are people who do not believe in any deity but do not go so far as to claim to know for a fact that they are right. This accounts for most of the atheist I know.
4. Gnostic Atheists are people who do not believe in any deity and claims to know for a fact that they are right about that. While there are some atheists out there like that, most of the atheists I know or have heard about are not. The reason for this is simple: most atheist I know or am aware of don’t believe in a deity because of a lack of evidence — I don’t believe in God because believing would require a leap of faith that is not supported by the available evidence. But, since it is nearly impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, claiming knowledge that there is no deity in the universe also requires a leap of faith. Which is why most atheists are more likely to be Agnostic Atheists. It comes down to the difference between saying “I don’t believe in God” (agnostic atheist) versus saying “I believe there is no God” (gnostic atheist).
Ahh, Michael Medved just won the gay adoption argument against Dan Savage because Dan said he was pro-gender discrimination. A strong ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) would solve a whoooole lot of problems, including gay marriage and gay adoption. It’s impossible to win a pro-gay adoption argument while saying that gender discrimination is OK. Courts have ruled that women are more fit to be parents than men. Unless you say gender discrimination is NEVER okay, gay rights will never be complete.
“how about you take the time to have a conversation with LOCAL Queers of Color to discuss the whole Proposition 8 mess?”
There would be neither glitz nor the same validation that he so desperately needs as TV. Besides, that might actually be effective, if you solve problems, you no longer have a forum to point fingers and insult people.
@60: Sure he will…if he’s honestly concerned about Marriage Equality Rights and preparing Washington State for the final fight–and that fight will come to our state and we have to prepared.
If we want to win the issue here, queers will need the votes of a whole lotta “thems” as well as “us’s.”
If so, he’ll sit down and do damage control, or at least have a dialog on how to build and maintain a coaltion. But if he’s only interested in national MSM coverage…
If he’d rather not to be a community organizer/leader, and remain a pundit and muckracker/editor, that’s fine, I respect that. Just choose.
What’s an asshat? Where can I get one? Do I wear it on my ass? Medved makes my gaydar go off.
Hey, Dan. You were great on the show. Absolutely came in with the right facts and arguments,and with the right tone.
Actually Beth in NJ (#61), the very last sentences would probably be better as:
“I believe there is no god” (agnostic athiest)
vs.
“There is no god” (gnostic atheist)
Saying, “I don’t believe in god” is almost more, erm, anti-religious? It’s like saying, “there’s a god out there but I don’t believe in it/him/her”.
Or maybe not, but whatever, the rest of your post is spot on, imo.
@15. I’m pretty new here, but I’ve noticed that every time Dan mentions his work or the travel necessary to do his work, you insinuate he’s neglecting his kid.
What the fuck is up with that? What’s your issue here?
@68
Just ignore ecce homo. His posts don’t mean anything.
Urgutha Forka @67 – Thanks! I see what you’re saying about the phrasing of that last sentence. I’m trying to decide if I completely agree with your proposed alternative. See, to me, saying “I believe” indicates a degree of unshakable certainty, which is exactly what I’m saying I, and other agnostic atheists, DON’T have.
The reason I’m not completely comfortable with “I believe there is no god” as a statement of an agnostic atheist is that, when people say “I believe” something, it can sometime be virtually impossible to shake them from those beliefs, regardless of the evidence presented. I’m willing to say (along with most other agnostic atheists) that if anyone ever presented to me compelling evidence that some kind of god existed, I would reconsider my atheism. I’m not sure the same could be said of gnostic atheists. I don’t know, I just think there is a difference (albeit a subtle one) between an absence of belief in something and a belief in the absence of something.
But I do see how saying “I don’t believe in god” could indicate that “god” exists and I just stubbornly refuse to believe in him/her/it/them, which is definitely not what I’m trying to say!
@56
Ok, ok, calling them wimpy atheists is flippant and possibly unfair.
I don’t actually give a fuck if people want to call themselves agnostic, but here’s why I don’t:
Santa Claus and unicorns and such. They might exist. It’s possible. But it strikes me as very unlikely, and I certainly don’t feel compelled to take a public position of, “well, I don’t know for SURE, because knowing for sure isn’t possible, so I’m going to call myself an agnostic about Santa.” No. I’m going to take the reasonable position about Santa, based on all available evidence: he doesn’t exist. Humans made him up. We do that a lot. We’re an imaginative bunch.
If Santa turns up one day, I’ll change my mind. But for now, I’m comfortable with the reasonable stance.
I think that this argument applies to gods exactly as it applies to Santa. And the reasonable stance, as far as gods go, is that they don’t exist.
Pozpoof,
“that might actually be effective, if you solve problems, you no longer have a forum to point fingers and insult people”
We really do need to keep this guy out of mainstream media. It’s bad enough when he rationalizes his hostility, but anyone who thinks that the type of stuff he says is just an opinion and not divisive is really dangerous. Of course, as we saw, when the table is turned, he’s all about that horrible other guy, like the O’Reilly complaint he has. just a matter of time before he’s an embarrassment and a burden to everyone.
Oops, now I probably sound insulting myself, but this is a big concern, look how ridiculous the Likes of Rush Limbaugh are; same behavior, different angle. Do we want one of “those” speaking for us?
Oddly, I’ve written a number of very rational letters to him, but until I got a bit more aggressive and public with the above, I had never heard back from him. He further proved the poor impression I have of him–public sensationalism sells I guess. too bad that’s the world he lives in, I can only really visit once in a while.
As an aside. . . I never believed in God or Santa. As a kid, I thought that both were sort of elaborate games/rituals. I remember with total clarity being in Sunday school when I was about 6 and realizing for the first time that grownups actually BELIEVED the Jesus story. And I thought that was fucking insane.
@ violet_dagrinder #73,
I was raised by an atheist (and I come from a long line of agnostics of the reality-is-unknown-and-unknowable variety) and was dragged by a well-meaning baby sitter to church and had a similar epiphany at the same age. I thought it was crazy that very small children knew Santa/Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny weren’t real and yet adults believed in Jesus.
#25 “Agnosticism is a cop out, and I truly believe it doesn’t exist at all.”
I am an agnostic. I don’t know if God exists and I don’t know that God doesn’t exist. I don’t pretend to know.
You are an smug asshole, but I respect your right not too believe. Which is a belief, therefore it can be called a religion, albeit a disorganized one.
Where can I hear Dan on Medved? I tried to listen on Medved’s website, but when I tried to download, it asked me to subscribe. I don’t need a subscription. Just Mr. Savage’s bit. Anyone? Anyone? Links?
@75
“Which is a belief, therefore it can be called a religion, albeit a disorganized one.” No! A belief does not equal a religion! I believe that my alarm clock will go off every morning. I have faith, even! That is not a religion.
And I think the point that many people are trying to make is that very few atheists think that we know for sure that there is no god. But until evidence of one comes along, we think it’s unlikely. In other words, most atheists and agnostics actually agree (most, not all).
@74
I honestly wonder if there is something different about our brains.
@75 are you an agnostic about Zeus? Really? Not sure? If your sure about Zeus, how can you not be sure about big-g God. The logic doesn’t really hold.
I think it probably is possible to truly not have an opinion, but it would require Zen-like concentration. You can’t casually be a true agnostic. Most agnostics are actually deists or atheists. Agnosticism is more of an attitude then anything.
Dan, I am disappointed you won’t be on The Factor tonight, I hear you have really nice hips and I was looking forward to making a lampshade out of them.
Enjoy your work.
Roy
@78: This is a common flaw I see in the logic of many self-professed atheists, and I’ve seen it a bunch on this thread: If you pick and choose specific religious beliefs based on their implausibility, classify every possible religious view as being of equal merit, and then knock down the one rickety example which you’ve selected, it kinda looks, if you squint, like you’ve adequately discredited religion as a whole. So yes, Santa Claus is pretty implausible. Magic underpants, also pretty implausible. But shooting fish in a barrel does not a sharpshooter make.
Take the issue of what happens at the point of death. Most religions have some kind of narrative for what happens when you die. Even if you don’t believe any of these, you can’t deny that at some point you will die and something will happen. Ergo, you can no longer simply state your belief in negative terms, unless you’re going to claim that death is a myth and doesn’t really happen. Now from where I stand, saying “I don’t know” with regards to what a person experiences at the point of death is a perfectly rational response and not a cop-out. In fact, pat answers like “everything fades to black” (a popular atheist response) seem like a cop-out to me. Really? Fade to black? How do you know it doesn’t fade to pink? “Fade to black” is a non-answer disguised as an answer.
I believe there are answers to certain non-trivial questions that are unknowable.
Who cares about Bill, I’m a sexual harasser, O’Reilly anyway? Loved you on Colbert though, Dan!
Dan,
Several years ago I saw Medved with his (beard) family, sitting inside Broadway Market and I swear cruising me & other guys.
I’ve always thought about that whenever Medved brings up “the gays” and their “agenda.”