A friend of ours notes that PZ Myers says,
Atheists have a bad rep, and the general public thinks we’re all amoral, corrupt monsters who reject god so that we don’t have to be held accountable for our wild drug-snorting, baby-chomping gay sex orgies. It’s a false stereotype; most atheists are indistinguishable from their Christian neighbors and make many of the same ethical choices they do.
And yet, given the rest of the New Atheist message (including what Myers says right there) it’s hard to escape this conclusion:
The Gnus tell us that the world would be a much better place if we could only drive all religion into the closet. Yet it turns out the “much better place” they have in mind is really nothing more than minimally constrained hedonism coupled with anti-religious bigotry.
[From Bad without god « Shadow To Light]
After reading that, I feel slightly ill. Is it possible to get the context in which Myers said that? I mean his quote in the article (the one you didn’t quote when you re-blogged it.
Here is a link to P.Z.’s article:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/08/sunday-sacrilege-bad-without-god/
Thanks for the link, JAD. So, Myers rejects the idea that atheists are immoral and then says that “If you want to have a wild weekend of sex and drugs and rock and roll, as long as you don’t hurt anyone, I will say, “good for you.”
I just threw up in my mouth.
No where does the bible, so much as intimate that atheists will be held accountable by the general public. John 3:18 NASB tells us in part: he who does not believe has been judged already, because he he has not believed in the name of the Only Begotten Son of God. Atheists will be held accountable by God himself. However all is not lost as long as there is life there is hope. You can still turn.
From reading his article, it appears to me that as an atheist P.Z. wants to bring back religious persecution. What was it that one of the signs at the Reason Rally said? “Too many Christians, not enough lions.” I guess they weren’t joking.
Of course with their new morality I am assuming there is nothing wrong with religious persecution.
How do you get religious persecution out of what P. Z. wrote in that article? It seems like that doesn’t align with his “If you want to . . . , as long as you don’t hurt anyone, I will say, ‘good for you'” statement. Are you equating heckling with persecution?
How do we describe it when gays are heckled?
Further, as one who attended the Reason Rally, I can assure you that there was more to the New Atheist agenda than mere heckling. PZ does want to eliminate religious influence in our world. To the extent that he carries that out through any means other than legitimate persuasion, to that same extent (mild to severe), it’s persecution.
I care little for PZ and his views. I’ve read enough of his material to find all too frequently his tone hostile, his language vulgar, and his attitude immature. Surprising, for a middle-aged academic. If I have to deal with an antitheist, I’d take Dawkins over PZ any day.
As for this particular topic, I think the conclusion quoted in Tom’s article above is bang on.