Post removed

[skepticscott]

1. Not much of a thinker, is he?

Atheist DO recognize a situation where there is no convincing evidence for the existence of something, which is exactly why they don't believe that it exists. No data..no belief. Which is exactly the approach the principles of science and skeptical inquiry that we respect (which respect the author rather vapidly tries to turn on its head) would lead one to.

And as far as science fiction, yes, many things are possible, or conceivable, but you don't just go around declaring they exist until you have evidence for them. The "smug atheists" that this little twit tries to smear know that very well, because we DO read a lot of science fiction.

[rug]

3. The author is female.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Anders is confused

Awe and delight at the astonishing universe don't imply religious or "spiritual" (whatever the fuck that means) feelings.

Arthur C. Clarke, author of Rendezvous with Rama, was an atheist, and he was not at all quiet about it. I'm a smug atheist who writes science fiction, and I know other sf authors who share my feelings.

[cleanhippie]

4. Well, at least she has found a way to feel superior to the rest of us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Jesus and Mo are particularly appropriate today:

not one of these smug atheists

[cleanhippie]

17. Indeed. Thanks for that.

[zeemike]

5. In a way it is the Christians who taunt the atheist.

They will say things like men walked with dinosaurs and it sends the atheist into a frenzy of disgust...(how could anyone be so stupid? they will say)...and so they respond with some insult....neither of them realizing what fools they are to do it and how they are trapped in a game of gotcha.

But they both need to read more si fi...and I understand what she means by that....Si fi opens the mind up to possibilities....which is needed by both sides.

[cleanhippie]

8. I hope you are not saying that humans walking with dinosaurs is NOT a stupid idea.

That didn't happen, humans existing with dinosaurs, right?

[Phillip McCleod]

6. science fiction does have one thing in common with religious texts

both are fiction

[aka-chmeee]

7. But Science fiction is honest enought to admit that it is fiction...

and over time, much of it has become non-fiction.

[Phillip McCleod]

9. true true. like geosynchronous orbit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Though that didn't originate in fiction

Concept of a geosynchronous orbit:

At the end of 1928, he published his sole book, Das Problem der Befahrung des Weltraums - der Raketen-Motor (The Problem of Space Travel - The Rocket Motor) in Berlin. The publisher, Richard Carl Schmidt, printed the year 1929 as a publishing date, probably from a purely business motive (to keep the book looking new throughout the coming year) and this date is often mistakenly given as the actual date of publication. In 188 pages and 100 handmade illustrations, Potočnik set out a plan for a breakthrough into space and the establishment of a permanent human presence there. He conceived a space station in detail and was the first man to calculate the geostationary orbit, on which the station would orbit the Earth. He described the use of orbiting spacecraft for detailed observation of the ground for peaceful and military purposes, and described how the special conditions of space could be useful for scientific experiments.[1] Potočnik expressed strong doubts of the potentially destructive military use of these fresh discoveries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Poto%C4%8Dnik

Use for communications satellites suggested by Arthur C. Clarke, but in a non-fiction magazine:

http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/

[dimbear]

10. Perhaps it would be a waste of effort to ask scifi writers what they would like theologians to cover

because Lafayette R Hubbard, Richard Shaver, Joseph Smith and Ezekiel have already pretty much covered the ground.

[jamtoday]

11. Lmao n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

12. This seems rather strange, but Science Fiction(along with real Science) is mostly what lead me...

to atheism. Big shows and stories about the cosmos, spacetime, and our place in it made churches, gods, and other things seem so small, inconsistent, provincial. Combine this with the real science that is many times applied to these stories, and learning about them, and the critical thinking skills needed to examine that, and you have a formula for rejecting the superstitious.

[MFM008]

13. sometimes

you have proof of the divine in your life.
Some time you believe and sometime you dont.
Neither should feel superior to the other.

[edhopper]

15. First,

I see a lot more post from smug Christians on FB than from atheist.
Second, the author her does not seem to get Science fiction or it's readers at all.
I could counter everything she says point by point, but why waste my time on something this stupid.

[rug]

19. She's quite accomplished in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Anders

[edhopper]

25. Interesting that she wrote something that stupid then.

The comments section covers most of where she went wrong.

[rug]

36. What is more interesting is tthat the comments have made her point.

Here's a good one.

Grizz Robinson

The author vastly misses the point. It isn't the atheist job to prove a negative. It isn't our job to prove that god doesn't exist. The religious are making a claim. A claim that has no evidence. A claim that can't be proven. Claim that something that there is no evidence for based on claims people are making doesn't exist does NOT have the equal weight of the claim being made that has no evidence.

The point remains these constant expectations of atheists being expected to prove a negative are intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

By the authors argument...me claiming that there's an invisible, pink dragon behind you has just as much merit as your claim that it doesn't exist.

[frylock]

38. so to summarize, atheists aren't allowed to make up fictitious, non-existent entities..

to counter arguments in favor of made up fictitious, non-existent entities? hokay then.

[rug]

39. Of course you can, but it's not much of an argument.

[edhopper]

40. By showing how the autghor misses the point

with a logical rational argument, the commenter makes her point?

[cbayer]

18. Well, that was fun!

I love some science fiction, particularly that with a religious theme. The Sparrow is one of my all time favorite books.

Just as an aside, I recently spent time with a large group of family members ranging in age from 23 to 82. We have among us non-believers and believers of many stripes, but not a single person who is antagonistic towards others because of their religion or lack thereof. There is also no smugness that someone has the right answer. Several of these people frequent DU and remarked on their experience here regarding anti-theists. They were genuinely startled by the mocking and arrogant hostility on display and remarked that they had never encountered this IRL.

It does seem somewhat unique to the internet, where people often feel freer to express themselves and their biases.

I think the advice in this article can apply to both believers and non-believers:

Someone else's subjective experience is as valid as yours
You don't know any more than the rest of us

[mr blur]

20. What kind of science fiction do smug Catholics read?

Other than the Book of Revelation?

[rug]

21. There's a wide selection at infidels.org.

Here's one.

"Christ's Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity"

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/book1059.html

It even has an endorsement from Dawkins.

[cbayer]

22. Why would Catholics read a different kind of science fiction that any one else?

As I mentioned above, one of my favorite Sci Fi books is the sparrow. It's about the first human trip to a planet known to be inhabited by intelligent life. Many of the crew members selected are Jesuit priests and they are chosen deliberately. I don't know if this would make the book more or less appealing to catholics, but having known many jesuits, it made it more interesting for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. I can't tell how she knows the amount of sci-fi that 'smug' atheists read

Sci-fi references seem particularly common on atheist blogs and forums, to me. Is it that she'd rather that religious myths were called "anti-science fiction" rather than "fairy tales"? We can do that. It paints the literalists as angry deniers of reality, rather than naive children.

[gcomeau]

24. I think you will find

...that atheists read more science fiction than the average.

They also clearly understand the point of it far better than the author of this idiotic article. A sense of wonder does not go hand in hand with gullible acceptance of mythological fairy tales. And the possibility that something is out there we don't know about is FAR DIFFERENT from simply deciding to not only believe in that something based on zero evidence but then going even further off the cliff of irrationality and baselessly deciding it has all kinds of conveniently anthropomorphic characteristics.



Also, dwell on the "fiction" part of "science fiction".

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

26. love science fiction! maybe you should try hard science.

[Walk away]

27. +1,000,000

[Speck Tater]

28. There's nothing wrong with atheism, but...

taunting is just infantile and tacky, no matter who is doing the taunting.

[hollysmom]

29. hey, I am a smug atheist who finds no fun in taunting anyone

I just lord my smugness over those who question my beliefs. hee.

And I read way more science fiction than anyone I know, I like the challenge of ideas based on bits and pieces of science, which then gets me off on a track of verifying just how much of this is science and how much is imagination.

[immoderate]

30. A naive article.

I don't know any atheists who don't recognize a body of "the unknown." But translating that into a recognition of some kind of intelligence presents some problems, as any scheme that can be presented gets bogged down in internal contradictions. There really is as much evidence for the tooth fairy as there is for god (if you ignore the fact that the tooth family leaves real money under your pillow.)

Almost all atheists recognize an aspect of agnosticism in their world view, as they can not claim direct knowledge of the mysteries of the universe, but that's not a reason to hypothesize a "supreme being" with magical powers that are outside the universe we observe.

Sounds like this writer is upset that people are smarter than she is.

--imm

[AlbertCat]

31. I think smug religionists (like this author)...

.... should read more real science books.

Besides.... what does she think geeks read in high school anyway????

She doesn't know much about geeks or atheists. Religion is just ancient sci-fi anyway. The difference between smug atheists and smug religionists is we atheists DON"T BELIEVE in sci-fi. We know it's fiction.

[xfundy]

32. Wow! I must have clairvoyance!

How did I know who the poster was, just by reading the headline?!?!?

With this kind of mystic power, I can make TONS of money! Just like the religion industry does.

Prove it? Why? OK, you'll know for sure after you give me all your money. It's GUARANTEED!*













*You won't know for sure till after death. At that point, NO REFUNDS.

[rug]

34. I know. I rarely need to read the body of your posts.

[longship]

33. Gotta love the "smug" tag.

It's like calling atheists strident, shrill, vitriolic, etc. It is a way to basically shut off the dialog.

And we hear these things from people of stunning arrogance who claim that without a belief in their particular god, one cannot know good from evil.

I am always amused about this, having softened my previous attitude when it would have angered me. Now I just ridicule it, with a chuckle and a smile.

About the article, I've read the Clark's Rama series. It was written by a non-believer, so I don't know why the writer uses an example that so thoroughly falsifies the premise of smugness.

Of course, there's always the unstated premise that atheists do not or cannot have numinous experiences. When I look through my telescope at the wonders of the solar system and the universe, or ponder the beauty of nature on this planet, or listen to certain music, I experience those same transcendent feelings.

And people call us smug?

I am amused!

[rug]

35. I find it interesting that people don't realize her article is not directed at atheists.

It's directed at smug people who may call themselves atheist.

[cbayer]

37. I read the smug part as defining a specific group and not directed at all atheists.

The author seems to be saying that atheists who feel they have the truth, belittle and taunt believers are *smug*, not that all atheists are.

She actually concludes with some strong support for atheism and atheists in general.

There are, in fact, smug believers and smug non-believers.

You are neither.