1

On religious atheism, there really is no contradiction at all there; some very prominent American Buddhists are atheists.

Me, I prefer the term, "nontheist," since, for this Buddhist at least, the question is irrelevant. Others have preferred the term "panentheist" (but nobody has embraced the term "pantheist," despite what some apologists write.)

2

What Mumon said.

The crazy thing is that "atheism" literally means without theism, not against theism. Atheist has come to mean antitheist. A religious "with us or against us" delusion has distorted this corner of the dictionary.

This has led to the notion that biology (or for a young-earth creationist, geology too) is antitheist not atheist.

As a Christian, I see no pressing need for extrapolating atheistic science to naturalism but, like Joe, I wouldn't overly deplore the naturalist endeavour. At worst, it's a subconscious re-hash of our religious heritage. At less-than-worst it could have something supportive to say.

3

"This is either a really lame parody of the political views of religious Republicans or, if its serious, an even lamer exhibition of how mixed-up some people are about how religion and politics intersect."

I'm rather surprised by your surprise Joe. Bushfish is a very mild example of what I see all the time.I should put together a list of some of the nuttier Christian sites I've come across. I'm glad you don't take them seriously, but the problem is I fear, that they do.

4

Agreed, Mumon, I'm an American Buddhist atheist although, alass, not prominent. My since of American Buddhism is well expressed by Tom Clark in the interview Joe points to -- even though I don't think Clark would (or particularly should) except the Buddhist label.

Alan, I really appreciate your point about what the term atheism means to someone like me. I am in no way against theism. My concerns are with the group of people who accept the label "evangelical rightwing conservatives" are rally around people like Roberston, Fawell, and Limbaugh (and, from what I read, Hewitt fits in that group as well in spite ofbeing more well-spoken).

5

"I am in no way against theism. My concerns are with the group of people who accept the label "evangelical rightwing conservatives" are rally around people like Roberston, Fawell, and Limbaugh (and, from what I read, Hewitt fits in that group as well in spite of being more well-spoken). "

Actually the more I learn about evangelical Christians, the more I realize that Dobson etc. actually might be more accurately described as Christian Evangelical Dominists, which is a sub-group devoted whom among other things, wish to replace secular law with Biblical law. The problem of course is that there is more inclination for more mainstream Christian Evangelicals to go along with the Dominists, rather than anyone promoting a more secular view of the world. Which is a mistake I think on their part. Dominists are far more threatening to other Evangelicals in many ways than to non-believers. As least as far as "freedom of Religion" goes. After all, if I as an un-believer am forced to publically support a religion I don't believe in, my soul is not at risk so I don't have a problem lying through my teeth. But for a believing Christian to do the same thing in order to appease what the Dominists want, well they would be risking their own soul. But they don't seem to have figured that out yet.

6

About the BushFish.

1. What exactly makes you think its a parody?

2. Anybody who doesn't think the vast majority of people out there believe that today's Christians hold attitudes consistent with those exemplified that site are a little confused.

3. And, confused again is the person who doesn't think there is a large segment of the Christian population who's views are represented by that website.

There are examples every day. From the Pastor in NC who tried to excommunicate Kerry-voting members, to the church that just recently posted a sign outside their church that the Koran should be flushed. How would you explain the fillibuser battle (hint: Frist is in Dobson's pocket)?

7

Patrick, I take your point. But personally the true theocrats don't worry me as much because they stand out from the rest as over-the-top. My concern is with the trend in that direction, supported by many more people, which could fertilize the ground for the seeds of theocracy and/or fascism. Meanwhile, here today, I see my rights and those of others being reduced.

8

I find it somewhat refreshing for Clark to acknowledge that atheism is a form of religious belief, not as so many maintain a scientific position. While not reading the whole thing, I suspect that we would agree that many of the things that some people claim are integral or unique to belief in God are merely emotional or cultural bits, associated only in one's mind. Those, of course, are the parts than are are irrelevant; on the truly important part, we're at opposite poles.

9

It's not a fish. It's a missile, complete with exhaust. No? OK it's the bastard progeny of the mating of a religious fish with a political missile.