Again Mark Shea stereotypes atheists according to his prejudices using frantic handwaving instead of real-world examples.  Yawn.

Excellent article.

I would just like to add that the “Flying Spaghetti Monster argument”‘s popularity among high-school atheists is another indicator of many of those people’s inability to comprehend basic human behavior, such as humor. The FSM joke originates, indeed, from a South Park episode which, somewhat surprisingly, took a few stabs at religion (most precisely the only religion safe to mock, Catholicism) but essentially ridiculed atheism and atheists’ intolerance and weak arguments. The “FSM” quote is presented in the episode as a stupid argument that is loudly praised by one of the character for the sole purpose of seducing Richard Dawkins, who is constantly humiliated and mocked for 40 minutes. The moral of the episode is that Dawkins act like a mean person (FAR stronger word -use your imagination) towards those who do not think like him and religion does not cause war, rather intolerance, such as Dawkins’ intolerant atheism, does.

Dawkins’s real life reaction was, first, not understanding the episode was mocking him and, upon being told it was mocking him, not understanding how anyone could do that to him.

Dawkins’ followers reaction was, obviously, just as clueless, reusing a joke that was supposed to make fun of their leader.

Adding you to my Rosary, Brian Westley.

Brian,
Your comment might have more weight, if it weren’t for the fact that many, if not most of the Christians here have encountered many or all of the types of atheists that Mark has listed here.  The number of times I have seen Hitchens and Dawkins trotted out really boggles the mind.  I have seen atheists talk about Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters so many times, I am starting to think that some atheists think they are real.  Of course the use of such terms immediately indicates that the Atheist in question is not really interested in real debate on the issue—even if they were useful analogies once, as a simplistic attack on faith, they are now merely insults flung at theists.

I don’t think that Mark, or indeed any of us believe that the types of atheists he lists represent all atheists out there, or even most atheists out there, but they do represent one of the most vocal elements.

I find it amusing how atheists always decry how Catholics (or any other Christians) attempt to “force their morality” upon others when they exercise their right to vote against same-sex marriage or abortion or whatever.

The alternative, of course, is to have atheists et al force THEIR particular brand of morality upon everyone else (but apparently, that’s okay…). Do these people not get the fact that in a democratic society, it’s essentially just the majority vote “forcing their morality” upon everyone else?

Brian,
What do you mean no real-world examples? He gives a fair airing to atheists, and I have met all of the above, from the militant disciple of Hitchens to the hurt and resentful believer-gone-atheist, from the highschool intellectual wannabe to the truly searching agnostic. Far from stereotyping, Mark offers quite a fair review…

“What do you mean no real-world examples? He gives a fair airing to atheists”

Like I said, he gives no real-world examples, just accusations.  Read what you yourself wrote:
“He gives a fair airing to atheists, and I have met all of the above, from the militant disciple of Hitchens to the hurt and resentful believer-gone-atheist, from the highschool intellectual wannabe to the truly searching agnostic.”

See?  There are no actual examples in what you wrote.  I could write that I met a hateful Catholic once, and you can’t dispute that or say anything to counter that, because I haven’t given a real-world example.  It’s an easy way to defame an entire group of people dishonestly.

Brian,
—
So apparently if Kephas or indeed any Christian doesn’t provide the name, address and presumably a notified transcript of a conversation with an atheist that fits Mark’s categorizations, then you won’t accept that they exist.
—
You certainly seem to be making a case that atheists are less rational than they claim.  A truly rational person doesn’t deny what is obvious to others.

“Brian Westley” is a parody of anti-rationalism, right?

“So apparently if Kephas or indeed any Christian doesn’t provide the name, address and presumably a notified transcript of a conversation with an atheist that fits Mark’s categorizations, then you won’t accept that they exist.”

Wrong, but you don’t seem to want an honest conversation.

“You certainly seem to be making a case that atheists are less rational than they claim.  A truly rational person doesn’t deny what is obvious to others.”

What is “obvious” to Christians is often NOT what atheists see, and vice-versa.  That’s why actual examples are needed, and not just vague generalizations.  Vague generalizations are more likely to perpetuate stereotypes.

//What is “obvious” to Christians is often NOT what atheists see, and
vice-versa. That’s why actual examples are needed, and not just vague
generalizations. Vague generalizations are more likely to perpetuate
stereotypes.//

What a vague generalization!

I can recall back when I was an alleged atheist that indeed, I both disbelieved in God and was angry at Him. One day, however, I recall hearing a gentle voice inside me say, if I do not exist, who exactly are you angry at?

At which point I decided that to be truly honest to myself, I had to admit that I believed God existed but I was furious at Him. So I began to argue with Him directly.

I actually wrote memos in my head along the lines of, “To: God, creator and ruler, Universe and Whatever Else, From: Bill, small creature here on earth who was created for reasons that remain obscure, RE: The following appears to have escaped Your attention.”

It was quite a relief and much healthier emotionally.

Brian,
So what will you accept as a real example?  You don’t seem to think that Mark’s descriptions are adequate (indeed you seem to think that no atheist can be described by Mark’s descriptions), and you claim you don’t want the detailed information I have suggested.  So what do you want?
—
I would submit that what is obvious to a rational Christian is also obvious to a rational atheist.  For example, you earlier used the example of the hateful Christian.  I don’t think most Christians would reject the notion that there are people who call themselves Christian who are hateful.  We might argue that the are not truly Christian, but we wouldn’t reject that they self identify as such.
—
Want a concrete example of the Atheist who was angry at God?  C.S. Lewis claimed that while he was an atheist, he was very angry at God for not existing.  Or perhaps you are one of the atheists who claim that C.S. Lewis was never really an atheist…

May Jesus Christ Be Praised!
Hi Mark,
  A very well-written article.  Thank you for it.  I especialy like that you got right to the point; so often one has to plow through much verbiage to figure out what the writer is trying to say.  Your article makes for fluid and easy reading, and you make a very very wonderful point.  You are so right about the factors operating in so-called ‘atheists. I will pray for them.  God bless you!

Then there was Sartre, who said, “God does not exist, the !@#$%!”

“So what will you accept as a real example?”

An actual example of a real event.

“You don’t seem to think that Mark’s descriptions are adequate”

Because they are just general descriptions; here’s one:
“there are also any number of callow youth whose problem is not some dark wound, but simply that they are callow youth who have read some dim dumb thing that Richard Dawkins wrote or clicked on a diatribe by Christopher Hitchens and decided they are the intellectual heroes who will make them feel superior to their high school sophomore class.”

“(indeed you seem to think that no atheist can be described by Mark’s descriptions)”

There might be some, but he’s writing about straw atheists so far.  In the above excerpt, how does Mr. Shea purport to know what the “callow youth” is thinking?  What “dim dumb thing” did he read?  Oh, never mind.  That would only derail his train of rant.

You see?  Shea is claiming that, somewhere, some youth read some dim dumb thing written by Dawkins or Hitchens or someone and is entirely motivated by a feeling of superiority.  There’s nothing there to dispute, since he hasn’t really said anything concrete.  It’s all handwaving.

Now, if Shea actually had an example, he could quote exactly what “dim dumb thing” referred to (and we could debate whether it actually IS dumb), and it might even be possible to debate whether the person in question appears to be motivated by feelings of superiority (as opposed to, say, genuinely being convinced that gods are myths).

But we can’t do any of that, because there’s no actual example to debate.  All we have is a crappy, straw-man atheist.

@Brian Westley: I might be wrong, but it appears to me that you missed the fact that Mark’s column is essentially a commentary on the Zac Altin column linked in the first sentence. Alstin argues that atheists’ of today are more certain and strident than several years ago, and traces some evidence of this (e.g., it’s no longer cool to be unsure, and we can either reform or replace religion, we cannot eliminate it). Mark’s piece amplifies with his categories, based on his experience in the forum.

As to real life examples, I think it is usually more useful to engage in discussion on-on-one rather than identify individuals by name in a published column.

If you want to debate specific claims of theists and atheists, there are many places to do this on the ‘net.

Brian:

Your silly replies go a long way toward demonstrating my point that many atheist worship rather than use the intellect.

Dear Brian

I have met the types of athiest Mark mentions, how do I know? I was one of them!!! I’m not sure if I was the angry dawkins worshiping athiest or the sad seeker, but nearly 5 years ago I walked into the local Cathedral and began to pray. I have studied St Thomas and hopefully next year will enter seminary or the monastary.

In Dommino
Jack

*sigh*

You know, if you ever want to know what atheists are really like, instead of turning to bigots like Mr. Shea here who trot out all these trite, inaccurate stereotypes, you might actually find one of us and just…talk.

Don’t try to proselytize, set your preconceptions aside, and just converse.

@Horse-Pheathers *sigh* I for one would appreciate it if you wouldn’t trot out these tired, inaccurate stereotypes about theists. You know, you assume we have not talked to atheists before. I can’t speak for the other commenters, but I have had many conversations with atheists, not to proselytize, but just…talk.  If one is paying attention over many of these conversations, there really are certain types of atheists - and theists.

Bruce—The “angry at god” thing?  That’s a stereotype created by religious apologists.  The “atheists really do deep down believe in God” thing?  The same. “...they are callow youth who have read some dim dumb thing that Richard Dawkins wrote or clicked on a diatribe by Christopher Hitchens and decided they are the intellectual heroes…”?  Belittling, and completely dismissive of even the possibility that atheism just might be a reasoned philosophical stance.

-

Need I go on?  The article drips with it, bigotry and prejudice top to bottom.  Might as well be enumerating the “types of black people” and starting off with “those that dance the hambone”....yeah, it’s that bad.  And if you can’t see it, then you’re probably a bigot too.

The “angry at god” thing? That’s a stereotype created by religious apologists.

Well, and by J-P Sartre. 

atheism just might be a reasoned philosophical stance.

Sure, but by Nietzsche, Sartre, et al.; not by these internet clowns. 

you’re probably a bigot too.

Why is it that those who profess to worship Reason seem unable to actually use it?

*snort*
<b>-

Let’s see, Stat….I express annoyance at someone slinging negative stereotypes around about me and mine, and because I show a little emotion, I am unable to use reason….

-

....but if I stick to logical arguments, I get dismissed as a soulless, emotionless creature “trapped in a prison of reason” as Ms. Fulwiler puts it in her blog here on this site?

-

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

-

How about you spend some time getting to know a few actual atheists and exposing yourself to some alternate points of view instead of hanging out in dogmatic echo chambers that coddle you with less-than-true palp tailored never to challenge your comfortable views?

-

Also, maybe you should check some of your assumptions about people like me at the door.  Most of them are very likely wrong or at best half-truths.

How about you spend some time getting to know a few actual atheists and
exposing yourself to some alternate points of view instead of hanging out in
dogmatic echo chambers that coddle you with less-than-true palp tailored
never to challenge your comfortable views? 

This from a dude who objects to negative stereotypes? 

Let me give an example: on a blog run by a well-known second-string atheist (Coyne) in one string the atheists were trashing free will (presumably they were compelled to do so) by citing causation-causation-causation.  OK.  On the very next string they were denouncing first cause by claiming not everything had a cause.  Do you understand how that might seem a bit like “argument of convenience” rather than a “coherent rational worldview”? 

Mr. Shea did not negatively stereotype, but simply engaged in a scientific classification of a species.  Of course, not all atheists are in these categories; but those of the noo-atheist subspecies largely do fall into these classes. 

Hope this helps.

Stat—sorry if was wrong about you; based on your previous response and the large numbers of people who hang out in these places that _are_ insular and hostile to new ideas—witness the number of times I’ve been asked “Why are you here?” over in the Fulwiler atheist threads elsewhere on the site by people who cannot seem to imagine why someone would actually visit a site that discusses views they don’t hold….?  Seemed like you were one of the same.

-

That said, Mr. Shea _has_ negatively stereotyped in his classifications, and taken a rather condescending tone throughout;  each classification he offers is dismissive of the atheist position, offering rather shallow and implausible motivations to be an atheist, thus painting us as wholly unreasoning creatures.  There’s little difference between the motivations he offers and the old canard that “atheists dismiss god because they want to be promiscuous slatterns and not feel guilty about it”.  It’s prejudicial bull puckey.

-

Come on….“For the dyed-in-the-wool atheist of the New Atheist Speaker’s Bureau, the use of the intellect is strictly forbidden”?  Not a belittling comment?  Not painting us with a broad, unflattering brush?  How is this different than were I to say something like “Bah, no one Christian is ever rational—they only believe because they’re selfish cowards unable to accept death and a universe that continues without them in it”?  That would be pretty belittling of thinking Christians, wouldn’t it?  You;d be justified in calling me out as an anti-Christian bigot, right?

-

How is anything Mr. Shea writes here any different?

Take this bit, for example:  “Indeed, even his blasphemies depend for their power on the God he blasphemes, which is why he spends all his time Not Believing in the God of the Bible and very little time blaspheming Thor or Odin.”

-

This has no relationship to reality.  The “New” Atheists—really just the same vocal opposition to religion that’s been going on since well before Voltaire—tend to hail from Western cultures, places where Christianity is by far the prominent faith.  Therefore, most of the places where we run up against religious excess (like, say, attempts to legislate teaching creationism in public science classrooms), it’s by various flavors of Christians.  Of _course_ you’re going to be our primary focus—if we were surrounded by Thor-worshippers trying to legislate everyone wear a Mjolnir pendant around our necks, they’d be our focus and inevitably the ones complaining “...even his blasphemies depend for their power on the gods who he blasphemes, which is why he spends all his time Not Believing in Thor and very little time blaspheming that Yahweh fellow.”

-

Our vocal complaints are a direct response to religion’s encroachments on our lives.  If Christians (or members of any other religion) were content to keep to themselves and not try to reshape society to favor their faith, you’d be hearing a _lot_ less from us vocal unbelievers.

Where on earth would one get the idea that many Evangelical Atheists are Napoleon Dynamite with a Mean Streak; socially unskilled people lacking the normal complement of social and affective skills normal people possess?

From their own preconceived notions, Mr. Shea.

-

Displaying the cross on public ground would be fine, if accompanied by other religious symbols. Standing alone, it helps contribute to the chilling atmosphere against _all_ non-Christians in this country.  The fact that you see no problem with it speaks of the privilege that Christianity as a faith has so enjoyed in our society thus far—you basically are incapable of seeing how saturating the public space with your religious symbols (at taxpayer expense!) creates a hostile environment for everyone not-Christian.

-

The 9/11 cross currently sits on private grounds, and there is should stay, unless you are willing to allow memorials dedicated to all faiths (and none) to stand alongside it on equal footing.  To do less insults the hundreds who died in the collapse of the towers who did not share any flavor of your faith, and makes the memorial not so much about the victims as about your faith.

-

You accuse us that oppose erecting the cross at the memorial of a lack of social skills when you apparently never grew up enough to learn how to share the public space or show consideration to those around you who do not share your faith.  This is a pluralistic society and has been from day one—it’s about time the privileged majority started to recognize that it’s bad for everyone for you to continue coopting public spaces to reenforce your faith to the detriment of others and expecting everyone, Christian or not, to pay for it.

-

Yet another show of your prejudices, Mr. Shea.

Also, please note how Mr. Shea has attempted to divert attention from the points I’ve raised rather than address them.  “Oh, don’t bother thinking about the heathen pointing out I’m full of anti-atheist bile—look here at the horrible thing those heathens are doing now to infringe your rights!  Disregard what the heathen says—he supports something you strongly emotionally support!”

-

Bah.  I shouldn’t expect better from you—the track record of honesty among theists, at least when discussing matters of faith are concerned, is pretty pathetic, almost always devolving into rhetorical flummery, knowing logical fallacy (especially poisoning the well, as you try to do here), and flat out misrepresentations of the views they are opposing in order to “win” the argument, at least in the eyes of people blind to the dishonest tactics being employed.

-

Care to set the hand-waving aside and address some of the points I’ve actually raised, Mr. Shea?  Prepared to have an actual _honest_ discussion?

...er….should have read “opposes something”.  Teach me to post before my coffee’s fully kicked in.

@Mr. Pheathers
“the privilege that Christianity as a faith has so enjoyed in our society thus far”

Given that our society derives from Christianity - Toynbee pointed out that the West is ex-Christian, which is a very different thing from ex-Muslim or ex-Buddhist - this is simply evolution.  It didn’t seem to bother anyone until fairly recently.  Since then people claiming to be atheists have made a dramatic effort to portray atheists as obnoxious, historically ill-informed, and hysterical.  I’d worry about them, were I you. 

“attempted to divert attention from the points I’ve raised” 

But those are attempts to divert attention from the points Mr. Shea raised; viz., that people think of themselves as atheist for a wide variety of reasons.  This is not “anti-atheist bile,” but simple taxonomy.  A Pew survey a while back found that a significant proportion of self-identified atheists said that they believed in God, for example.  Nietzsche believed in atheism because he wanted to visit !@#$%.  Sartre was angry with God.  Hitchens is an atheist, by his own account, because at age nine he “just knew” that there was no God. 
One of course could make a similar taxonomy of any group.  You could start with the distinction between “religious believers” and “church-goers.”  Many people attend church because that’s what their friends do, or because they can make business contacts, or because of habit, and so forth.  This is not “anti-theist bile” but simple observation.  It no more proposes that *every* theist falls into one of these categories than Mr. Shea’s taxonomy contends that *every* atheist falls into the categories he has observed.

Horse:

Had a Star of David or Crescent or Laughing Buddha emerged from the rubble of 9/11 and become the focus of a huge amount of emotional healing for the workers who labored to comb the ruins for bodies, I would be all in favor of including it in a public memorial since a memorial that does not memorialize the profound feelings of loss and grief surrounding 9/11 is rather beside the point, isn’t it?  Indeed, I have no problem with a public memorial mentioning the various tokens of faith of the various people who died in the tragedy, since I have no doubt that members of other faiths turned to their traditions too to cope with the horror.  I believe in a full, not barren, public square.  But emotional dwarfs such as the Evangelical Atheists who get their undies in a twist whenever somebody else evinces normal human feeling about their faith consistently demonstrate their inability to even grasp such normal human interactions—as your reply again abundantly demonstrates.  That is why Evangelical Atheists will always be a small minority.  They are indeed Napoleon Dynamite with a mean streak: people with an emotion/affective personality disorder who mistake their disorder for superior intelligence and who blame normal people for not hailing them as geniuses.

Stat—

Christianity has certainly influenced Western culture, but you place it too high on the list of influences.  The very language we speak derives its syntax from the ancient Nordic tongues, while much of its vocabulary has a lineage dating back to ancient Rome.  The days of our week take their names from Norse, not Christian, gods.  Much of western philosophy comes to us from the pre-Christian Greeks, including the concepts of democracy, rational debate, and the public forum.  Don’t go trying to take sole credit for what we are—to do so would be to prove yourself as historically ignorant as you accuse most atheists of being.

Saying that people have “not had a problem” with Christianizing public spaces until recently kind of glosses over a bit of history as well;  only recently, relatively speaking, has it been safe for those who oppose religion to actually speak up about it.  We’ve always been with you, we atheists, and more often than not over the course of history, the religious have reacted violently to us whenever we spoke up.  Tolerance of “heretical” views has not been the church’s strong suit for much of its life, but thankfully that’s gotten a lot better over the last few hundred years.  I can speak up without fear of torture and horrifying death, now I only get a little sneering and people like you and Mr. Shea here trying to reassure everyone that I have nothing rational to say and I’m only an atheist because, oh, I’m a callow youth in awe of Dawkins or other such twaddle. 

Also, I reiterate, this “taxonomy” is prejudicial hogwash, another form of that “poisoning the well” I mentioned earlier.  You are willfully blind if you don’t see it.

—

Mr. Shea—

My personal feeling is that the public memorial should be about the victims of the attack, and nothing else, and that religious symbols would prove a distraction from this; the memorial would be better without religious trappings.  That said, I understand why people might want such symbols at the site, and I (like every other atheist I have talked to on the matter) do NOT oppose them, so long as symbols for the faiths of every single one of the victims is represented on equal footing.  The “on equal footing” part is important.  Religion, for good or for ill, is a large part of the majority of peoples’ lives, and while I think we as a species would be better off “putting away childish things” so we can move past “looking through a glass darkly” and actually reach a better understanding of ourselves and the universe around us, I would not try to take away another person’s faith.  All I (and others like me) ask for is respect and tolerance, for people to stop trying to ram religious doctrines into public schools and to stop creating a chilling atmosphere for the rest of us by co-opting public spaces and public laws to favor one religion over all others.

Public spaces paid for with public funds should welcome _everyone_ regardless of their faith.  Turning these places into shrines to your religion makes those of us who don’t share it less welcome there.  How hard is that to grasp?

As for the rest of your anti-atheist rant, Mr. Shea, if you ever care to know the truth of us I’d suggest actually setting aside your dogmatic prejudices against us and sitting down for a beer and a chat some time.  You’ll find the vast majority of the so-called “New Atheists” are pretty decent people, that we’re reasonable and generally well-educated and quite moral and despite our passion for strong rhetoric and a good debate, far less “arrogant” than you might believe.  Most of us hold our views on _rational_ grounds, not from some kind of hero-worship or anger at some god or desire to indulge in lust sans guilt.

In writing the things you have, you’ve helped perpetuate lies; you are either ignorantly or willfully “bearing false witness” against us.  I do believe your holy book has a few things to say on that subject.  You’re probably a perfectly nice fellow and well-meaning, but really in perpetuating these stereotypes you’re falling short of the decency I know you’re capable of.

“Christianity has certainly influenced Western culture, but you place it too
high on the list of influences. The very language we speak derives its
syntax from the ancient Nordic tongues, while much of its vocabulary has a
lineage dating back to ancient Rome.”
.
Western civilization was a child of Classical civilization, so obviously there are genetic connections; but the *content* of the civilization is vastly informed by a thousand years of soaking in the marinade of Christendom.  Compare the Classical dictum, “The strong take what they can, while the weak suffer what they must,” the excuse the Athenians gave the Melians prior to their attack on that neutral polis, to the Western ideal of caring for the poor and weak.  We need not kvetch about whether everyone lives up to such ideals (or down to them), although we do note that the classical ideal was resurrected by Nietzsche.  And while the Men With Swords can always justify their wars with enough double-talk, the Western civilization has insisted that they make a casus belli.  The Romans needed only a naked priest to leap from the Temple of Mars and toss the Spear of Mars in some randomly-chosen direction. 
.
It is almost impossible for a post-modern Westerner to conceive of the utter cruelty of Classical (and most non-Western) civilizations. 
#
“The days of our week take their names from Norse, not Christian, gods.”
.
Big whoop.
#
“Much of western philosophy comes to us from the pre-Christian Greeks”
.
As preferentially preserved by the Christians, yes.  Esp. Plato and Aristotle.  But modern Western philosophy mistakenly rejected them. 
#
“We’ve always been with you, we atheists, and more often than not over the course of history, the religious have reacted violently to us whenever we spoke up. Tolerance of “heretical” views has not been the church’s strong suit”
.
Atheism is not a heresy.  Can you cite historical examples?
. 
And no State has ever been very tolerant of treason.  Consider the Cathars, who were tolerated for three generations before they assassinated a Papal legate.  Like the Montana Militia, who denied the validity of written contracts, the Cathars denied the validity of sworn oaths—in a society built on interlocking webs of sworn oaths.  Even so, there were some very obvious Statist motivations at play on the part of the Lords of the South as well as the Lords of the North.  m

Stat—

I admit there’s been considerable Christian influence on Western society, you admit that there are other influences (whereas before you seemed to be laying the entirety of everything good and noble in the western world at Christendom’s feet)—it seems our only disagreement in this regard is a matter of degree and which influences were good, which bad, and so on.  My point is that Christianity is not the end-all and be all of western thought;  we are mutts, not purebreds.

-

Even Christianity itself was the product of its environment, first taking aspects of Egyptian and Babylon lore and later Roman Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and many other influences.  At various points in the bible, it condones slavery, genocide, the inferiority and near ownership of women, polygamy, murdering children for disobedience, and any number of things that we look upon today as barbaric and have, as a society, outgrown.  Christian doctrines have been used for both good and for ill—in the American Civil War, preachers on both sides were arguing for and against slavery based on biblical text.  Yes, Christianity has had a heavy influence on western thinking—but it hasn’t always been a good one and some of our best achievements have been in letting go of ideas that Christendom once embraced.

-

Still, this is beside the issue I’ve been trying to get you and Mr. Shea to address, which is the obvious anti-atheist bias and misinformation in this article.  He has painted a picture of us apparently designed to further smear us in the eyes of the faithful, make us easier for them to dismiss and ignore and marginalize and disrespect.  I don’t know if he has done so knowingly or out of ignorance, but the net result is the same—he has “born false witness” against me and mine, and it is _not_ okay.

<<Even Christianity itself was the product of its environment, first taking
aspects of Egyptian and Babylon lore and later Roman Mithraism,
Zoroastrianism and many other influences.>>
.
Aw, and you were doing so well, only to fall into that ignorance-of-history thingie you cautioned us about. Let us not confuse superficial resemblances for substantive connections. 
#
“At various points in the bible, it condones slavery, genocide, the inferiority and near ownership of women, polygamy, murdering children for disobedience, and any number of things that we look upon today as barbaric and have, as a society, outgrown.” 
.
My goodness!  But on what basis do you declare these things wrong?  Or “barbaric”?  (“Barbaric” is a slur against all non-Greeks, sez I!)  And I note as too often, that beneath the atheist skeptic lies ever a fundamentalist literalist who believes—sola scriptura!—that the Bible is the source of the faith, rather than the faith the source of the scripture.  Don’t forget that it was the Age of Reason that revived a moribund slavery in Europe and reduced women to almost the status of chattel.
.
Did you know that Inuit and other people living on the edge once abandoned their aged grandmothers on ice floes?  Had they writing, they might have written that Sedna commanded this.  But was it really a barbaric practice now outgrown, or was it the cold equations of survival in a harsh milieu? 
#
“the obvious anti-atheist bias and misinformation in this article. He has painted a picture of us apparently designed to further smear us in the eyes of the faithful” 
.
As far as I can tell, he has only listed certain kinds of noo atheists that he has actually encountered.  You might not like it that he has encountered these folks, and might wish that he had encountered more thoughtful and rational atheists, but alas, he can only proceed on the empirical evidence.

Stat writes:  “As far as I can tell, he has only listed certain kinds of noo atheists that he has actually encountered.  You might not like it that he has encountered these folks, and might wish that he had encountered more thoughtful and rational atheists, but alas, he can only proceed on the empirical evidence.”

-

You disappointment me—you’re obviously reasonably intelligent and well-educated, yet you are blind to Shea’s departure from the empirical to start injecting his own biases into the text.  Your critical reading skills, however, seem to be lacking (at least when assessing the writings of one of your own).

-

I’ve listed a couple of examples of bias in Mr. Shea’s article earlier in the conversation, which you have conveniently ignored.  Need I go through and list _every_ place in the artice, point-by-point, where he has injected his prejudiced spin into the text?

-

He opens with this old canard:  “I can’t tell you how often I have gotten mail from people who tell me they don’t believe in God and then almost instantly reveal that they are furious with him.”  Utter tosh.  The best that can be said is he might be misinterpreting the anger some of us feel toward the institution of religion, toward the misbehaviors and hypocrisy of many believers.  More likely, he is just reciting by rote one of the most common lies told by the religious about the atheist:  He feigns disbelief because he’s in some sort of snit at your god.

-

This is part of a whole subset of “atheists don’t really disbelieve in gods” hooey.  “There are no atheists in foxholes”, intimating with a wink and a nudge that everyone turns to a deity in times of crisis.  Wrong.  “A lot of people who claim they are atheists really believe in god(s).”  Sorry, never met one who did and I guarantee I talk to more atheists than Mr. Shea does.

-

Need I go on?  THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS LIKE THIS.  It’s like a recitation of every major anti-atheist stereotype ever devised, and so ignorant of who and what we are that I am forced to wonder if Mr. Shea has ever actually talked to one of us—it’s like he sees the word “atheist” and immediately paints whoever is talking to him as the nearest easily ignored caricature he can shoehorn them into.

-

What do you want, a scholarly article with citations and a nice dry “...and this misperception first found its way into literature in 1803 when the Rev. Dobson addressed the Northwick Baptist Assembly….” coupled with lengthy explanations of just how and why each little scrap of his writing is WRONG???

Mr. Pheathers
He opens with this old canard:  “I can’t tell you how often I have gotten mail from people who tell me they don’t believe in God and then almost instantly reveal that they are furious with him.”  Utter tosh.
.
I would say that getting mail from people expressing anger at God constitutes empirical observation.  Much like Sartre, when he wrote, “God does not exist, the !@#$%!”  But wait, I see that you, who has not read any of this mail know better than the recipient the tenor of the remarks.  This strikes me as remarkably un-empirical. 
#
Your critical reading skills, however, seem to be lacking
.
Oh, my goodness!  I must be reely stoopid. 
#
This is part of a whole subset of “atheists don’t really disbelieve in gods”
hooey.
.
Actually, everyone does believe in an ultimate good.  Sometimes it is called God, sometimes it is called Race, or Party, or Nation.  YMMV.  But usually it is in the nature of the beast that there be some greatest good for which lesser goods might be sacrificed. 
#
THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS LIKE THIS. It’s like a recitation of every major anti-atheist stereotype ever devised
.
Surely nor “every” one.  He mentions only the ones he has commonly encountered. 
#
and so ignorant of who and what we are that I am forced to wonder if Mr. Shea has ever actually talked to one of us
.
Likely to enough that he falls not into the trap of thinking that there is any one thing that constitutes “what we are.”  Hence, he lists several in his experience.  Talking to “one of us” is insufficient, unless the entire group is so uniform in thinking as to resemble brainwashing. 
.
In all likelihood you are correct, and what he needs is a better class of atheists in his commbox.  Yet, I have encountered a few here and there, and they report being savaged by other atheists as “accomodationists” and so on, revealing a deep (and cannibalistic) anger among them.