The latest hilarious dust-up over religion has to do with an ad on DC buses scheduled for the holidays by the American Humanist Association (AHA):
Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on the outside and inside of DC Metro buses starting next Tuesday and will run throughout December. Newspaper versions of the ads ran in The New York Times and The Washington Post this week.The advertising campaign is part of an effort by the American Humanist Association to reach out to like-minded individuals around the nation's capitol and elsewhere who might be interested in humanism. The atheistic group espouses the belief that one can live a moral life apart from a belief in a god or the afterlife.
"Humanists have always understood that you don't need a god to be good," said AHA executive director Roy Speckhardt. "So that's the point we're making with this advertising campaign. Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience."
One version of the ad features a black Santa shrugging under red and green-colored text with snowflakes appearing in the background. Posters of the ad will be mounted on the side of DC Metro buses, between the taillights, and behind the driver's seat. (The Christian Post)
I'm not one of those atheists who feel isolated and alone at Christmas time. I love Christmas and I don't feel the need to be reminded there are a lot of fellow atheists out there. But one reason I like Christmas is that it promotes and encourages good will and generosity to others. Yes, merchants profit off of it, but better than profiting off of war. This ad campaign also encourages generosity and good will, so I approve their message (funny how that phrase sticks in one's head). There's nothing hateful or mean about it in the least, any more than to call Jesus the Prince of Peace is hateful or mean because we disagree with the religious reference. Not that my argument is persuasive to the faithful:
"It is the ultimate 'grinch' to suggest there is no God during a holiday where millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. It is insensitive and mean," remarked Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group that has defended the rights of cities and schools to display nativity scenes and Christmas decorations.
"Christmas is a time of joy and hope, not a time for hate," added Staver. "Why believe in God? - Because Santa is not the only one coming to town."
Tim Wildmon, president of American Family Association, which has encouraged its 3-million member base to boycott businesses that censor Christmas, described the ad as "stupid." He couldn't understand the logic of the ad's message telling people to be good apart from a belief in God.
"How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world," said Wildmon, according to Fox News.
Roberta Combs, who heads the Christian Coalition of America, said the campaign's attempt to ban God and Christmas from the public square will not sit well with many Americans.
This ad doesn't advocate banning God from the public square. This ad isn't hateful or mean. This ad doesn't take the side of a particular religion in ways that denigrate all others. It doesn't censor Christmas. But I understand that the mere suggestion that people can be moral without being told by some religious leaders what morality means is distressing to this kind of Christian. So in the spirit of forgiveness, generosity and goodwill, here's a counter ad promoting religion:
- Log in to post comments
Dr. Revere,
I very much respect your high intelligence and manifest knowledge and competence in the sciences. I don't agree with your politics, but that doesn't diminish your standing in my mind - guess that's what makes me a bonafide American.
Today's "Sunday Sermon" was really not that offensive; I'm a strong believer in G-d and personally strive for spiritual growth (stated with all humility). I agree with all that you said above pertaining to being good. I may be conflating authors (I read "La Vida Es Suena" so long ago), but I thought it was Miguel de Unamuo's character in one of his novels who was a priest, who explained to his fisherman friend, when posed with the question of G-d's existence, responded, "Even if there were no G-d, one should live his life as though there is One." Your overall message is basically the same.
I used to wonder about the intelligence of ancient pagans who worshipped idols. Were these men so stupid as to think these man-made objects became imbued with supernatural control over their fates, once they made them? Then a rabbi explained to me the psychology behind idolatry. These men were as intelligent as men of today. Idolatry was a construction of rationalizing what was convenient for men to believe. As their cultures gravitated downward (I've often thought of man's moral deterioration almost as another natural manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics, i.e., naturally moving toward entropy without the input of energy, i.e., moral striving), they were able to rationalize their progressively degenrate behavior by having their idol-gods agree with them, and post-facto, defining their degraded behavior as their originally given laws of morality.
This seemed a good explanation of that phenomenon, as we have seen similar deterioration in 20th Century men of intelligence (e.g., the German nation of the 1930's-40's), which had, until then, represented the apotheosis of Western culture, science, philosophy, etc.
I remember the old medical school biology professors' famous rule: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." The connection here is that in my own life, I, too, had your philosophy during most of my younger adult years - man should be good for goodness's sake. But my own trajectory, in the absence of faith in G-d and His immutable laws, led to my own slippery slope of rationalizations and ultimately resulting in a nadir of sinful betrayal.
I won't turn to prosyletizing here; I can only speak for myself and my own subjective experiences of synchronicity. But I completely believe that I was subsequently allowed to observe incredible coincidences (observations and experiences) that I believe (again personally and subjectively) went beyond psychological explanation. The path to redemption (which in itself may never be acheivable) is long and tortuous - but for myself, I've lived through both sides of this universal "equation;" this very legitimate debate in every person's search for immutable "Truth," and even "Reality."
I think I've made my point - not a repost or rebuttal - just another contribution to your Sunday sermon. I'll take the liberty of ending with a few quotes that I find very pertinent to my own experience:
"Had I not fallen, I could not have arisen; had I not sat in darkness, I could not have seen the light."
"If you come to sin, He will allow you; if you come to seek Him, He will assist you."
"The seeking is the finding."
Respectfully Submitted and with Best Regards,
Paul.
These dumbfuck theocratic assholes just never give up. Do they really believe the ridiculous Bronze Age fantasy shit they spew, or is it just disingenuous cover for an authoritarian power grab?
Paul: I won't turn to prosyletizing here...
That wouldn't be possible, since that's the only direction you've faced.
Perched here in my chair, I won't sit down now.
Sorry Paul, but that was one of the dumbest screeds I have seen in a long time (but then again, I don't post at Pharyngula). I stopped reading your comment at "ontongeny recapitulates phylogeny," for obvious reasons.
I debated replying to the three gentlemen whose comments followed mine. As a compromise (with myself), I'll just give some short responses:
Comrade PhysioProf: I've heard it said that an aetheist really has the strongest belief in G-d. How else to explain a life-long anger against Something he claims not to exist? I don't know what else to say to you, since your post addressed none of my thoughts specifically (which I respectfully shared with a good deal of unguarded candor), other than it's profanely expressed paranoia about power grabs. I see I piqued a seething anger here.
СпаÑибо, ÑоваÑÐ¸Ñ (rough transliteration: pajolastav tavarish): "Thank you, Comrade."
Pierce: You're observation that the only direction I've ever faced has had something to do with prosyletizing, makes me wonder if you were responding to my post, or someone else's. I think my mini-bio pretty obviously describes how I've traveled both sides of the road, and faced other directions than the one to which I'm now facing. And please remain seated, I didn't expect you to rise on my account.
Chad: I'm sorry my dumb screed disappointed you so. I'm not familiar with "Pharyngula," but just as a point of information, (and dumb though I may be) I believe the proper spelling of the word is "ontogeny." In any case, the reason you stopped reading at that particular word, other than your possible unfamiliarity with the term or concept, is not all that "obvious" to me (probably because of my dumbness). Had you read further, my hope is that you might have inferred (from the context of what followed) my attempted analogy. Nevertheless, thank you for your commensurately civil, respectful (and thoughtful) response.
Comrade PhysioProf: Brief emandation here: Dr. Revere's website doesn't support the Cyrillic alphabet. Those characters that appear before my translation were a Russian phrase, properly spelled in Russian as I posted it - not intended symbols of some deleted expletive. I don't think it in good taste to answer someone in kind, if you get my meaning.
Paul, my life is directly the opposite of yours. I was a very naughty catholic girl when I "believed". Now that I am an atheist I am saner, happier, more stable and lead a rich and fruitful life. I wish I had started out that way, like my own atheist daughter.
Instead I was born into a religion that uses guilt and shame to extract obedience. I refused to raise my daughter that way and she is a much better person than I could ever hope to be.
Paul, change your character encoding from Western to Unicode, and you'll see the Cyrillic (although you actually wrote "Spasibo", rather than "pajolastav").
It's because that particular principle has been discredited for decades now, much as if you were writing about the physics of the current LA wildfires by invoking "phlogiston".
HAHAHAHAHAHAH! What a ridiculous dumbfuck!
Dude, atheists aren't angry at some made-up sky fairy fantasy daddy who doesn't exist. They're angry at authoritarian theocratic assholes who seek to hijack the power of the state to impose their deranged destructive Bronze-Age fantasy shit on normal decent people who just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Paul worte: "As their cultures gravitated downward (I've often thought of man's moral deterioration almost as another natural manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics, i.e., naturally moving toward entropy without the input of energy, i.e., moral striving), they were able to rationalize their progressively degenrate behavior by having their idol-gods agree with them, and post-facto, defining their degraded behavior as their originally given laws of morality."
...and I sat for a moment wondering whether any response I can make would do any good, and finally decided to do something about it.
Paul, the problem is that whoever told that to you lied. Pagan people had no moral problems that Christians did not have, and were no more degenerate than Christendom. In some cases, however, they were much more advanced that monotheistic cultures. For example, individual rights and freedoms in medieval (pre-christian) Scandinavia were way ahead of those in the rest of Europe, especially for women. And there were plenty of atheists among them and very few of them, even among the true believers, took their idols as literal embodiments of their deities.
What's more, your parallel between moral striving and the second law is deeply flawed, since "moral striving" is possible even within a closed system (i.e., one without gods of any kind).
As I was reading Pauls comment, I was struck at how condescending he was toward people who did not believe as he did. Both to those who worshiped many gods, and to those who worship one god fewer than he does.
I used to wonder about the intelligence of ancient pagans who worshipped idols. Were these men so stupid as to think these man-made objects became imbued with supernatural control over their fates, once they made them? Then a rabbi explained to me the psychology behind idolatry. These men were as intelligent as men of today. Idolatry was a construction of rationalizing what was convenient for men to believe.
Precisely. In case you missed the rabbis more subtle lesson, he was saying the ancients worshipping multiple pagan idols were just as intelligent as modern peoples worshipping a single virtual idol. A virtual idol becomes imbued with supernatural powers the same way the ancients imbued their non-virtual ones. A virtual idol is much easier to construct and imbue with supernatural powers; all the easier for rationalizing what ever it is that is convenient to believe.
A similar bus thing was done in London the end of October 2008.
On Tuesday, campaigners announced plans for an atheist advertising campaign to appear on the side of buses with the message: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The campaign, which was launched by TV comedy writer Ariane Sherine, blogging on Commentisfree.co.uk, hoped to raise f5,500 from supporters, which Dawkins had pledged to match with his own money, but by yesterday public donations had already raised more than f96,000.
Great stuff Reveres. Imagine a world where there was no religion - how peaceful it would be.
Paul - two important questions: 1) are you really asking these questions in a spirit of enquiry, or is this just a tiresome example of christian apologetics and 2) why say "G-d"?
Most people here would simply say that if you've gone through various life experiences and come, at last, to the idea of some kind of eternal "truth" involving "sin" and redemption, then you haven't finished developing. Dump the g-d stuff, do something good in life, not for you, not for J-s-s, but just because it's the right thing to do. Throw away your mind crutches, and just think!
Then, when you no longer feel you have to get everyone to believe all this deeply religious crap, then come back with some insight and dazzle us all.
Until then, don't bother us. Oh, and athiests don't hate god (that would be absurd) we hate the religions which worship him for all the harm they do.
But I think you're lying about your motives ayway. Witnessing is truly witless
AnthonyK
Anthony: Your question to Paul made me laugh. Orthodox Jews don't spell out the word God, instead writing G-d. It made me laugh for two reasons. One is, how really, really silly it is. I know we are supposed to respect other religious traditions, but really, now. BTW, I was raised as a Jew (although by the time I was 12 even I could see how dumb most of what I was taught was). The second thing that made me laugh was your assumption that Paul was a christian. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption since most people in this country are christians and the things they say are indistinguishable in logic and common sense from the things Paul was saying. Paul may as well be a christian. No real difference in thought processes.
Ѐ is displayed as: Ѐ
Ё is displayed as: Ё
Ђ is displayed as: Ђ
Ѓ is displayed as: Ѓ
Є is displayed as: Є
Ѕ is displayed as: Ѕ
І is displayed as: І
Ї is displayed as: Ї
Ј is displayed as: Ј
Љ is displayed as: Љ
Њ is displayed as: Њ
Ћ is displayed as: Ћ
Ќ is displayed as: Ќ
Ѝ is displayed as: Ѝ
Ў is displayed as: Ў
Џ is displayed as: Џ
А is displayed as: А
Б is displayed as: Б
В is displayed as: В
Г is displayed as: Г
Д is displayed as: Д
Е is displayed as: Е
Ж is displayed as: Ж
З is displayed as: З
И is displayed as: И
Й is displayed as: Й
К is displayed as: К
Л is displayed as: Л
М is displayed as: М
Н is displayed as: Н
О is displayed as: О
П is displayed as: П
Actually the Cyrillic characters work just fine. Just use html character entity references, and don't preview.
Big fat table here.
To All of Yesterday's Commenters and Dr. Revere:
Please bear with me - this will be my last post here, as one of you requested that I not bother you anymore. I had no idea of the consistency of Dr. Revere's following; I had no intention of starting a riot.
I realize many of you have moved on to other things by now and may not note this post, nor care to, but I needed the night to think through exactly what happened yesterday.
Yes, I am a Jew, but not orthodox. In fact, I do not attend synagogue and also turned away from my religion when I was 16 (I was a little slower than you, Dr. Revere). During this time of my life I am grateful I was born a Jew only because I became aware of the tome of knowledge available to me to start over to search out what I consider the wisdom and guidance that I needed after reaching such a low point in my life. I pray alone, at home, in English, from my heart - not formulaically. It was the formalized and chauvinistic character of Judaism that did and still does offend me. Especially in this blessed country, where Christians (and others) have been so good to Jews, yet we continue to alienate those who only wish to be our friends.
I must apologize to the first three commenters to whom I responded; I was so shocked by the vitriol and bitterness of their responses, I must admit that my own bruised ego and vanity came through with with condesceding and defensive ripostes. For this I am truly sorry.
I only wish to correct the impression that my orginal post was not disingenuous nor meant to be condescending. Sometimes I feel like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner in the obssesive need to share my own experience. I can see that would come across as prosyletizing, though I do not come from a tradition that practices that (Jews don't proselytize, they tend to exclude others).
The reason for this final post is to confirm that my original post was meant as a conciliatory confirmation of much of what Dr. Revere said about Christmas and the universality of good will.
My cautionary digression about men of good will, over the generations having the potential to gravitate toward degeneracy or barbarism, was only meant as that - additional opinion, not argument nor accusation that atheists are bad people. My reference to Unamuno's point about being good even if there were no G-d, is the principal I tried to follow until I failed at it. That is probably a reflection of my own lack of character development, and not meant as an inevitable outcome for all who have determined to do without Him.
I was defending G-d, becaue of my personal sense of gratitude to Him, but I agree about all the destruction and murderous harm that organized religions have caused throughout history (and continues to do in the present).
Finally, and with no condescencion intended, I also believe that you folks of science are helping mankind by your research and your teaching. I acknowledge you in my prayers, but (no doubt to your offense) I thank G-d for guiding you to the miracles you create.
Peace, Brothers.
Paul.
This may not be condescending, but it's still pretty f***ing insulting.
I'm not a scientist, but if anyone suggested that my successes were a result of some invisible influence rather than my own hard work (and the guidance of my tangible mentors, of course), I'd probably kick them in the shin (I'm not a very violent person).
I am wondering, why is it so hostile when a religous person does post on here? Why does it cause so much animosity? I am a Christian person, I don't go around being mean to people, and truthfully I just don't worry too much about what others are doing... I am curious because this whole thing is about how atheists are and can be great people wihtout religion. If that is true, which I am not saying it isn't (I have many atheist friends and family whom I love dearly) why is it so upsetting to encounter a religous person? Paul made his comment, as everyone else did theirs, why get angry? The whole thing is about kindness and peace. It would make sense to understand what he is saying, and disagree kindly. Why is it so hard to get along?
Christina Cooper
If I Only Had One Wish
www.aframeofmindart.com
Christina,
You just don't get it. The Reveres could care less whether you were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. - your own personal beliefs are yours. If you want to talk about your god there are plenty of Christian blogs where you can be a Wowser. When you blog on this site you are required to use your brain, to discuss and argue points on their merits. Your own personal beliefs don't come into the equation.
Please take your own personal beliefs elsewhere. If you choose to join the discussions here, and you choose to bring your own personal beliefs into discussion, be prepare to be offended.
Christina: I think you have made a valid observation. I ordinarily don't repay fairly bland remonstrances like Paul's with anger, but I don't think the faithful have any idea how offensive their silly platitudes and bland condescensions can be to those who live lives in a society that takes for granted things that are so clearly nonsensical, self-righteously absurd and blandly baneful. People shove this crap down our throats all the time without even thinking about it because it's part of the cultural furniture. We spend a lot of time walking on eggshells regarding beliefs even family and friends can repay with the most vicious anger. So it is perhaps not so unusual that atheists emulate this reaction when safely at home in an environment that allows us to say what we believe. This is less an excuse than an explanation. But since you asked. This space allows people to react in a way we wouldn't and don't and shouldn't react "normally." For atheists, places like this our liberated territoryand we can tell the Emperor he has no clothes in whatever language we choose without worrying if the Emperor is offended.
OK, I promised the last post was my last; trust me, it will have been my penultimate post - this will be it. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank Christina for your kind words.
Victoria, and Dr. Revere: is there no way for you to post a warning that personal beliefs or other thoughts other than just the facts, are not welcomed here. It wasn't obvious simply by the Sunday "Sermon" Dr. Revere posted. Aside from his valuable scientific postings, he's always posting his political beliefs (are those absolute facts?); and this week's "sermon," almost invited a thoughtful (though subjective response), simply because that's what his post consisted of, did it not (his feelings about Christmas time and the good feelings he experiences at that time of year) - are those hard, cold objective facts, Victoria??
As Christina has observed, I may as well confirm my similar impression. Having been an atheist for many years, I was never so bitter nor nasty toward believers during that time.
This has truly been an unusual experience for me. I have never encountered such bitter, angry resentment from so many folks for what I thought was a confirming message reflecting the essence of Dr. Revere's "sermon."
It might behoove some of you to go back and read my original posting; much of my shock at so many of your reactions resulted from the impression that you weren't reading what I had written - it's as though you had read it through some ugly filter, filled with defensive hatred...like a red flag setting off an angry bull.
I obviously stepped into the wrong "Church;" you ought to post a warning about what kind of posts are allowed, welcomed, whatever, even if the owner of the blog, himself, posts pieces of the same nature, but not welcomed by others who visit this blog.
Good bye, folks.
This is nothing more than a "standard issue" troll. Don't feed it.
Paul, let me quote from Mathew: 7.5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
In your first comment you said "Today's "Sunday Sermon" was really not that offensive; I'm a strong believer in G-d and personally strive for spiritual growth (stated with all humility)."
My perception is that you were damning with faint praise, that by stating that Revere was "really not that offensive", was somehow meant to be a compliment. To me, that indicates that your normal position is that all messages that are not in lock step support of monotheistic religions are by "default" offensive. You don't seem to be going as far as those Revere quoted who said it was hateful and mean, you merely said it was "not that offensive".
So what does it take to state a message of atheism in the public square and not be offensive? Is the "responsibility" of the offense with those who state a message or with those who are offended by it?
What precisely was "offensive" about Revere's sermon? That he reported that some religious leaders responded to simple neutral messages of atheism with hate speech?
If the content of the messages was reversed, and a theistic group put up a message analogous to the atheist message but used a reference to their particular deity and atheists responded that the message was hateful and mean would you fault the religious group for being offensive?
Isn't that what has happened here? Your quasi-religious-supporting message was found to be hateful and mean by some atheists who responded as such. Your response is to dismiss those perceptions of those atheists, fault them, and fault Revere for not warning you that such things might happen.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in that? Or is your world view so brittle that it can't tolerate that kind of self-examination?
I won't apologize for posting once more (that would be silly by now); and I am not a "troll." I merely wish to thank daedalus2u for his very thoughtful and instructive post. I didn't recognize any of those that preceded his as being (let's say) as informative or corrective to me.
Daedalus, you are absolutely right in what you say. It had totally escaped me that my "really not that offensive" *was quite rude* and as others have accused, indeed condescending (to say the least). In my mind, it followed from the preceding paragraph that I don't agree with Dr. Revere's *politics.* But I didn't clearly make the transition and the actual statement, appearing in the next paragraph on religious viewpoints was a real error - and insult to the rest of you, whom I can now understand, I've offended. Now I understand the contumely I encountered.
To all: I sincerely apologize. What was meant as a conciliatory comment from a once fellow traveler (though I also knowingly offered a cautionary opinion/observation based on my own failures), turned out to be poorly expressed, constructed, edited, whatever. In retrospect, I'd unkowingly entered a blog which was a virtual meeting place (sorry for the "church" crack) for aetheists, and presumed to "preach" opposing "dogma" to the congregants. I *am* aware of the universal etiquette to approach discussing people's religious views, as though walking on eggshells (as put by Dr. Revere).
I thought it was more of an open forum for ideas - and I don't say that as a backhanded criticism; I simply didn't realize the blog readership's communal beliefs concerning religion (or lack thereof) outside of its more apparent scientific orientation. It is for the latter that I have been visiting this blog for its valuable information about AI.
I can now see the log in my eye, and stand instructed. Thank you Daedalus.
Paul: This really is an open forum, with all that implies. In the past we have had much more insistent theists than you and some still stop by. But the cost of openness here is the chance or probability that what you say will be handled roughly. This is a science site which is why there are many more atheists here than in a random site on another subject. Sometimes the result is clarification, sometimes it is obfuscation, sometimes it is withdrawal and very occasionally it is enlightenment for one side or another. So my advice is read what you wish and skip the rest.
I am agnostic but I sometimes wonder if atheists can't be just as cruel and intolerant. Witness what the Chinese are doing to the Falun Gong. If you all want something to really worry about, here it is. Never mind that the article is taken from a reactionary rag (Weekly Standard), or that the Falun Gong themselves may be reactionary - who cares?
The Chinese government is apparently stripping Falun Gong members of their organs and killing them. Another wonderful thing from the country that gave you bird flu and melamine-tainted milk and worthless drugs.
Take a look, and see if this is something you can live with:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=1…
Linda: I think the answer to your implied question is obvious. Atheists and agnostics can be just as cruel as anyone else, given a reason. Religion is one motivating factor for cruelty. More than a motive it is an enabler. Atheists have to be cruel for other reasons. Ideology is one, the desire for political power is another. Atheism doesn't make you good if you aren't good, but religion can make you bad.
Religion might make you good too - I don't know. The Falun Gong apparently think it makes them good. I don't know whether they are "good". I don't particularly care. I just know they are being murdered, and their organs are being harvested for sale to people who need transplants, apparently including some Westerners.
It's something to think about, wouldn't you say? And it is hard to imagine religious regimes - even crazed fundamentalists- ripping organs out of people's bodies to sell them. Then again, you never know.
But this is happening right now. It's not, unfortunately, a theoretical issue.
Here at my UC university campus there exists a club, the Christian College Republican Club, that strongly advocates right-wing Christian evangelism. Now that Christmas is around the corner, I am reminded by my Christian peers that the time to repent my sinful ways, embrace the Christ, and renounce the evils of society has come! For example, set up at the Quad every week is a poster outlining "mission goals" of the club. Here a few I remember from this quarter alone:
1) Preach the Word of God! (I assume this means the "correct" word, not the "incorrect" Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Astari, etc. versions. Or the "incorrect" brand of Christianity, right?)
2)Raise the alarm over the "raging debate" about climate change. Genesis is a great predictor of natural status quo.
3) Challenge society to reject evolution on the grounds that science is an affront to God.
4) Jews = Christians in disguise!
5)Liberals are usually gay. Or atheist. Or a combination thereof depending on how much that liberal wants to shun God.
Recognizing that these college students are my peers and will actively, passionately, and relentless ply their lives in the pursuit of blocking, mocking, and attacking rational reason, scientific processes, and scientific advancement is a sobering thought.
Neither agnosticism nor atheism prevents cruelty or intolerance. However, both remove one (and only one) important source of cruelty and intolerance. It's an important step in the right direction, but it is only one step.