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.
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.”