Sam Harris, anti-religionist atheist, published a list of ten myths about atheism – and many atheists point to these as straw men that Christians use against atheism. However, while some of their accusations may be true, I contend that (1) much of his logic does not follow, and (2) he has created straw men, and misrepresented the Christian critiques of atheism.
Before I get into my response, let me allow that there may be many Christians who actually DO use the straw men Sam Harris outlines below. However, I would argue that such Christians do not represent the true teachings of Christianity, nor the perspective of more educated, logical Christians. Rather, it may reflect the knee-jerk responses of the immature who have yet to actually have developed a consistent apologetic.
And by definition, there are more mature people than immature, for three reasons. First, it is human nature to be lazy and not mature. Second, since more people become Christians all the time, and new converts can be zealous, there is a constantly growing and replenished pool of newbies with big mouths. Third, as I outlined in Why Most Churches Suck, modern churches perpetuate spiritual infancy through their own stoopid practices (primarily emphasizing passive attendance at weekly preaching as central to the Christian life, rather than being in relationship with other believers who are practicing the personal disciplines of the Christian life).
1. Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
Damn, starting out with a straw man already! The Christian contention is not that
atheism leads to meaningless, but the subjective approach to morality
associated with secularism and atheism logically leads to
meaninglessness because it follows that if all morals and values are subjective, then it is foolish to say that anything has ultimate meaning. This is entirely logical, though the link between morality/values and meaning probably needs more elaboration.
But if an atheist would agree that some things have objective worth and meaning, then the link between atheism and meaningless is non-existent, as Harris claims. But let’s look at what else Harris says.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless
and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal
happiness beyond the grave.
Yes, this is true. They believe that meaning can only be assigned within their master story (the biblical narrative), but as George Fowler adeptly mentions in his books Stages of Faith and Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian, all faith systems (including "godless" ones like atheism) have a master story through which they make sense of life’s vagaries and assign meaning. Atheists also have a master story, though one that denies knowledge or existence of the afterlife, and assigns all meaning within the context of this life and the limits of reason.
Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is
precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived.
The phrase "fully lived" begs the question of meaning, so is a bit of meaningless (pun intended) rhetoric. What he should have said is more around living up to one’s potential, and living in the way that gives us the most pleasure (this is not by definition hedonistic or ethically bad, since even self-sacrifice can be pleasurable).
Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not
last forever to be made so.
I think he misrepresents Christianity as teaching that relationships only have meaning in an eternal sense. This is another straw man, IMHO. Again, here, however, he re-explains their master story – "there is only this life, and that context is enough for us to assign meaning." So in a real sense, I agree with Harris on this – it is possible to assign meaning within an atheist world view.
Atheists tend to find this fear of
meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
I think this statement, though meant to be funny, is disingenuous. The whole reason he is defending atheism against the accusation of meaninglessness is because they don’t like such an accusation – that is, they have a fear of meaninglessness, or at least, a fear of being thought to have such a "problem."
Overall, however, I agree with Harris – the accusation that atheism is a world view that demands meaninglessness is a myth – but if one’s atheism includes only subjective value and meanings, then the accusation of a worldview that leads to meaninglessness does have some merit.
2. Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
Well, I have certainly made this claim, so let’s examine his defense of atheism.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and
Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with
fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of
religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.
While I agree with Harris that these systems functioned too much like religions, what he is missing is that any time you have a system of rules empowered by an authority, and one that purports to answer religious questions (Is there a God? What is God like? What is the nature of man? What is wrong with the world? How do we fix it?), it is by definition a religion. What this means is that anytime atheism is enthroned as the state ideology, it will function as a religion.
Notice that he does not deny that such regimes are atheist (though if given more room he might). He is agreeing with their hard stance against, even their persecution of, faith. How revealing.
Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what
happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of
political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok.
True. But while you might argue that atheism is not the direct ideology that teaches eugenics, I would argue that these other evil ideologies, which had atheism as one of their foundational pillars, ran amok because of atheism’s inability to provide a framework for meaning, it’s inability to answer man’s need for God, and the vacuum it created in suppressing religion. In such a vacuum, nationalism or some other unhealthy ism MUST fill the void.
There is no society
in human history that ever suffered because its people became too
reasonable.
No doubt. But while atheists rely only on reason, their stance on the reality of God is not reasonable, esp. because it makes claims about God’s absence that it can not prove. I would further argue that no nation based solely on reason has ever flourished (unless you count communism/socialism), and that, like the founders of America, I would argue that no nation could flourish without a virtuous people, and such pervasive virtue is impossible without religion and faith. The founders were students of history, and spoke with wisdom and authority on this issue, and created our excellent form of government based on those assumptions.
3. Atheism is dogmatic.
Well, before I even look at Harris’ arguments, I have to say that I agree that atheism is NOT dogmatic, except in one thing – it’s affirmation that it is sure that God does not exist. That is a dogmatic statement of faith.
An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous.
So, no positive evidence is offered, just rejection of the claims of others. How can he write with a straight face that atheism is not dogmatic? What a joke!
He then goes on to quote one of the most unreasonable pieces of empty rhetoric I’ve read in a long time.
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend
that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours.”
I was unable to find a good dissection of this piece of cr…creative polemicism, so I’ll do my best to explain why the conclusion made by this atheist is a non-sequitur, though my ability to argue philosophy is limited – I wish I was familiar with the more classic arguments here.
The contention that a man who believes in one god is an atheist because he believes in less than two gods is not only technically incorrect, it assumes that the logical jump from polytheism to monotheism is the same as going from monotheism to atheism. However, the logic to make these jumps is entirely different.
The reasons monotheists find fault with polytheism are many and varied. But in a nutshell, these reasons are (1) the logical stance (only one God can be omnipotent, but then again, there’s the Trinity ;), and (2) the revealed stance (the bible is a believable authority that makes authoritative claims). And of course, these points are arguable, but the point is that the "logical" argument for atheism (and as said above, it’s really a statement of faith that God does not exist) is a very different argument – and it does not rely on the revealed truth from any authority.
The polemic trick the atheist is playing on his own mind, and trying to play on us, is to reduce the argument to a simple mathematical equation, and then once we have accepted this false premise, to merely subtract one more and say "see, it’s the same thing, only I’ve used the same logic that you use to exclude polytheism, and excluded monotheism!"
The problem is, it’s not the same logic, and questions of philosophy, faith, or morality do not boil down to mathematical equations. But to the atheist whose entire epistemology is based soley on reason, and who can not make use of intuition, faith, revealed truth, or the assumption of objective moral and spiritual law, I am not surprised that the best argument that Harris can rely on is the inappropriate reduction of such decisions to mathematical metaphors.
So, in conclusion, Harris’ statement that atheism is not dogmatic is wrong for two reasons. First, some atheism, notably "hard atheism", atheism DOES make dogmatic claims without evidence, chief of which is that God does not exist, and atheism’s disdain for faith puts this belief, even if denied, into action. And to buttress this errant claim, Harris relies on an illogical metaphor that attempts to deceive us into thinking that the logical jump from poly- to monotheism is the same as that from mono- to atheism, which is quite plainly a reductionist mistake, if not a creative but purposefully deceptive lie.
Responses to Cineaste:
Yes, atheists do believe some things have objective worth and meaning. Math, for example. Ethics, is another.
So, um, on what basis can you objectively prove the value of your ethic, and how is that any different than proving the value of your morals? If you claim that some moral statements are objectively true, then you are off the hook regarding meaninglessness. If it is all subjective, then you are not.
I have to disagree with you here because a “story” has a definitive “beginning” and “end” and can be “told.”
I see your point, and could be convinced to agree, but I think that (a) you are being too strict about the definition of “story”, and (b) I think that atheists do have a story.
First, by story I mean a way in which to explain where we’ve come from, historically speaking, and where we will or SHOULD be going. I propose that the atheist master story is something like this:
Atheism does not meet your criteria. First, Atheism is not empowered by an authority.
No, you misunderstood, I was not clear enough. What I meant was, atheism claims answers to these essentially religious questions, and when put in authority, as in running a country, they function as a religion by definition. So, put atheists in charge, and you are putting a religion, or pseudo-religion in charge.
What I was trying to say is that Harris’ argument that Communism and Socialism were functioning as religions, whereas atheism would not if in power, is a specious argument because when you put an atheist world view into power, it by definition functions like a religion, that is, there would be essentially no difference between a Communist government and an atheist one – they are synonymous in their core assumptions, their dogmatic statements about the non-existence of God, and any atheist government would be driven to the evils of communism by its foundational assumptions, chief of which is that religion is bad for humanity.
This is a straw man. We don’t fear meaninglessness. It’s not even a problem. Life may indeed ultimately be meaningless.
OK, I concede on that one. My argument there was really tongue in cheek. Again, I mostly agree with Harris that atheism is not per se an ideology that demands meaninglessness. But as I said, if atheism demands subjective morality, values, or ethics, I’d say that the accusation of logically demanding meaninglessness has some merit.
Second, Atheists don’t know if there is a God or not, just like they don’t know if leprechauns exist. If you’re implying that atheists have faith that there is no God, this is another straw man
Well, it looks like I misunderstood. My understanding was that atheism claims positively that “there is NO god.” However, upon reading Agnosticism v. Atheism, I find this clearer explanation
However, I think this is an intellectual dodge because of atheism’s antagonism for all religion. Why would they call it all bunk if they are only NOT believing, but not claiming that their lack of belief is true? I think their antagonism is more than just disgust with the bad parts of religion, and mroe than just lack of belief, I think atheists have an ACTIVE disbelief. They would say this is a straw man, but their antagonism for religion, and their demeaning of something they can not disprove speaks of faith and positive belief that God does not exist.
And then, there’s this quote from the same link above:
And this is the problem. As it turns out, there are both strong and weak atheism, the former having a positive faith that NO god exists, and the latter, more like atheistic agnositicism. So atheists can’t really get off of the hot seat by claiming that atheism is merely the latter.
While “agnostic atheism” may be what most atheists actually believe, the “evangelical atheists” like Sam Harris et al. reject agnosticism entirely, and so my accusation that they are dogmatic may stand.
I am willing to let go of this “straw man” of atheists not having a positive disbelief, and I guess that would mean that they, by definition, are NOT dogmatic. However, their antagonism for all religion makes them look suspiciously dogmatic, and if not, then they have another problem other than dogmatism.
Atheists don’t know what God is like if he does exist because He is silent.
The claim that “God is silent” is a claim based on their definition of how God speaks. That in itself is a religious claim.
Seeker, I swear I have never EVER seen you butcher a quote as badly as you just did. Seeker, you are an Atheist to 10,000 Gods, both polytheistic and monotheistic (Allah, Zeus, Mithra, etc), for the same reasons I am an Atheist to those same 10,000 Gods.
I’ll have to address this in another post, but let me say that (a) I have misunderstood the quote if what you are saying is the actual interpretation, and (b) it is still a poor, if not illogical analogy.
However, I understand the point of it now, even if I disagree – that just like I do not believe the claims of other religions, atheists would just add my religion to the list, no difference.
The founders created our form of government based upon the political system of ancient Greece and the virtues of “The Age of Reason” which are decidedly secular and non Christian. This topic is out of place here really so I moved it to the bottom.
Agreed, out of place, but I am coming to the conclusion that they actually mixed Grecian virtues and reason with Christian virtues and principles, maybe even 50/50. How about that claim? That’s why I once said that in order to fix Islamic nations, we need to saturate them with a cocktail of secularism and Christianity. Muahahah.
Well, crap. There goes my pseudonym. Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens never had to worry about changing freaking blog ID's. :(
Torturing babies for pleasure is objectively morally wrong. Moving on…
That’s nice to say, but on what basis do you decide that this is wrong, but killing fetuses for convenience is NOT objectively morally wrong? Just wondering. A Christian would say that these conclusions can be determined from an entire list of objective moral principles, including the right to life, the sanctity of human life, etc.
science is no more a story than it is dogmatic.
I am not saying that science is either. What I am saying is that atheism assumes a progression to history, and proposes a path for the future that helps them assign meaning to events and choices.
I am not up on my atheist history, but I have been told that atheists don’t have a body of doctrine. But I do know that recent atheist luminaries like Sagan, Dennett, Harris, et al., do presume to speak for atheism in an authoritative way.
And I am claiming that atheists DO have a master story, even if they are not perhaps aware that they use such a device in everyday life. When atheists here deny they have such a story, my first thought is that either (a) they are unaware that they use such a device, or (b) I haven’t made my claim clear enough for them to recognize what I am talking about.
The atheist master story may not be consistent across all atheists, but I think that, based on the other common beliefs of atheism, we can concoct a common one, and that is what I clumsily tried to do.
I have to repeat to you that atheists don’t know for sure how life originated, no one does.
I agree that in principle, atheists believe this way. But in practice, they actually depend on evolution to answer the question of origins, including either abiogenesis or panspermia as a primary assumption. Sure, they don’t KNOW, but deep down, they have made some assumptions based on what they see as likely, which is nearly a set of faith assumptions.
This is, I believe, why Dawkins has famously said “Before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Because Darwin fills in an essential component of one’s master story – origins.
It’s another straw-man you are trying to erect to bolster your own contentions. I for one don’t believe that we will ever leave religion and superstition behind.
I am not trying to create a straw man, I am trying to ferret out, based on my limited knowledge of atheism, what their master story is. I deeply believe that all people have such a master story, even if they are not consciously aware of it. It may not be that well developed, and individuals that lack such a coherent story probably suffer emotionally and intellectually – see Dawkins’ quote above – I think he is admitting such suffering existed before Darwin helped fill in the atheist master story.
The reason I have to ferret out the atheist master story is because, even though I believe it exists, atheists are either unaware of the concept, or have some intellectual reason to deny that they operate this way, or atheists are too diverse or anti-authoritarian to have a clearly articulated master story.
Those are not essentially religious questions.
Well, we need to agree on terms, but one common, and reasonable, Christian approach is that answers to ultimate questions of origins, meaning, and the life to come ARE religious because they are not directly observable by empirical science, and because they are essential to one’s world view.
Questions like the reason for man’s existential isolation, the nature of God, the first cause behind life (origins), the roots of suffering, soteriology (doctrine of how people are to be rescued from suffering, guilt, and even death), and what happens in the life to come, are all considered foundational questions in one’s religious world view.
If you don’t want to call that religious, fine. But most of these will have to be answered with assumptions or statements of belief, not empirical proof. I will go back and re-read your comments on this.
Who says? You? It’s just your assertion and I disagree.
Yes, at this point, it is only my assertion, and I have yet to do enough research to back it up. You are welcome to disagree. This discussion is unearthing many misconceptions and gaps in my knowledge of atheism, and I intend to fix that, though not merely by adopting the atheist viewpoint on life ;) I intend to use reason and discussion, and also, I intend to use my current world view to analyze things.
If you’re implying that atheists have faith that there is no God, this is another straw man.
I am not merely deafly (nor deftly ;) repeating a typical atheist straw man here. As I have discussed either in this post or on one of the other recent atheist articles and comments, there are two reasons why this is not a straw man.
I agree that MOST atheists follow the “agnostic atheism” or “soft” atheism you describe. However, the fact that they trivialize the existence of God, equating it with fairies and spaghetti monsters, and in so doing, make no distinction between the reasonableness of various supernatural or non-empirically verifiable claims, means that IN PRACTICE they function just like “hard atheists” who believe there is no god.
This is why many atheists are militant anti-faith evangelists. Because they believe that ALL supernatural claims are UNTRUE SUPERSTITIONS, i.e. harmful lies.
I don’t think religion is bad for humanity and neither do most atheists. Most find religious fundamentalists like creationists and suicide bombers abhorrent
Firstly, the fact that you group creationists and suicide bombers together, although probably meant more as a slight than an equating of the two, illustrates one of my points – in eschewing any discrimination between various supernatural or religious claims (or scientific assumptions, of which ID/creationism has one set and evolution has another), atheists FUNCTIONALLY operate as if they were not true, that is, as if they BELIEVED all such claims to be equally invalid. And since some religious claims are so heinous or foolish as to almost certainly be false (even if you can’t *prove* them false), atheists pretty much conclude that all are just as unbelievable as the worst of them.
I have no doubt that many atheists don’t dismiss all faith out of hand. But I believe that their ideology does, and the fact that Harris et al. reject agnostics and non-atheist secularists as “compromisers” shows that they are willing to be consistent about their beliefs. Like moderate Muslims, moderate atheists who tolerate, even laud religion, are probably not following their core convictions to their logical conclusion because they recognize them as incorrect. But their ideology is still errant even if they themselves try to be more generous.
In fact, this argument for the existence of moderate Muslims is an important analogy. It argues that the main reason that all Muslims aren’t raving terrorists is not that Islam does not teach them to be, but because as humans, they recognize the anti-human principles taught by Mohammed, and decide not to follow them. In essence, they are not really observant Muslims.
The argument being applied here is simple – if you follow the tenets of Islam, you can’t be “moderate.” Modern day atheists are saying the same – they are claiming that you can’t be accommodating to religionists and be a rational and consistent atheist.
All this is to say that I believe that most atheists are kind and conscientious people who aren’t on an anti-religion crusade. But I think that atheism may be more pernicious than these individuals, and I do not forget what the recent atheist nation-states “accomplished” in the name of reason and secularism.
but they are tolerant to religion in general. Sam Harris, for example, often cites the Buddhist religion as a model.
Being tolerant to the more impotent faiths, the ones that make no claims as to principles outside of personal piety, that don’t want to affect public life outside of churches, is hardly a virtue. That’s essentially a “you stay in the closet and we will be happy with you” approach. Which faiths do atheists despise? The ones that challenge the atheist/secularist claims in ethics, morality, public policy, scientific assumptions – that is, in the places of influence and power. This is where all ideologies really play out.
I am not surprised that atheists might like the more ideal forms of Buddhism, because they are essentially empirical. There is a lot to be said for this approach. However, I am willing to bet that where Buddhism starts to make claims about the life to come and supernatural beings, atheists sour. And if Buddhism began to make claims that contradicted an atheist view of public morality, ethics, and public policy, it would certainly lose its favored status.
You have created a HUGE straw-man. Atheism didn’t suppress religion.
Not until it gets into power. The outright antagonism to faith and belief that religious faith is unhealthy, not to mention dislike for the agnostic and secularist “compromisers” who give space for religion, as demonstrated by the New Atheists” like Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Sagan, would obviously and easily morph into oppresion, esp. when such empowered atheists are motivated by a “positive” goal of ridding humanity of superstition.
Oppressing religion is a hallmark of totalitarian governments, but I’m sure that, in a simple “frog in the kettle” fashion, atheist would use their enlightened reason to reduce religious freedoms to nill – to state controlled and sanctioned churches (as in China and Russia), to disallowing non-sanctioned churches, disallowing dissent against the master architects of a superior society – it’s happened so many times in recent history, it seems a foregone conclusion to me.
Now, atheists would not want that to happen any more than the Germans would want to follow a eugenicist. But you’d be surprised what moral compromises people are willing to make in the service of a motivating vision, esp. when such changes are gradual.
I don’t consider this a straw man at all, but actually, the unrealized consequences of errant beliefs like atheism and Darwinism. Believers in such systems are entirely in denial, as evidenced by their total denial of the role their ideologies have played in the modern horrors of Communism and Nazism, respectively.
I am not trying to demonize atheists, nor create alarm about or hatred for atheists. But I am interested in liberating people from the clutches of these destructive and largely bogus ideologies. I say largely because some things that atheists believe and do are fine, even laudable. But others are destructive lies that push humanity away from God and towards moral and ethical ruin.
I apologize for repeatedly using this quote but you repeatedly raise this straw-man.
No apology necessary, but I re-raise this subject because I do not find these quotes sufficient to deny my claims. As I said above, while technically, atheists may not disbelieve in God, functionally, they do, and I accuse them of being a bit disingenuous.
It's a religious claim to say "God Speaks." It's an empirical claim to say "God is Silent."
I disagree. I say God speaks through dreams, visions, angelic visits, nature, intuition, and people, among other things. For you to say that "God does not speak this way" is to make a claim about God, which is claiming religious knowledge. At best, like you claim about God's existence, you can only say "I doubt God speaks, but I can't know."
For Seeker,
That’s nice to say, but on what basis do you decide that this is wrong.
This basis,
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28
But I do know that recent atheist luminaries like Sagan, Dennett, Harris, et al., do presume to speak for atheism in an authoritative way.
That’s their political view Seeker. If you want to study modern atheism seriously, I would suggest Bertrand Russell. Read his short essay, “Why I am not a Christian.” It’s why I am not a Christian any more.
…based on the other common beliefs of atheism, we can concoct a common one (story).
AKA, a straw-man.
…they (atheists) actually depend on evolution to answer the question of origins, including either abiogenesis or panspermia as a primary assumption. Sure, they don’t KNOW, but deep down, they have made some assumptions based on what they see as likely, which is nearly a set of faith assumptions.
Origins does not fall within the scope of Evolution. If you take me as an example, I have some conjectures of how life originated, sure. But paramount in my beliefs is that I think whatever I assume about life’s origin is probably wrong. We are still searching for a definitive answer to this question and religion only pretends to know. We don’t even know if microbes (life) exists on other planets.
This is, I believe, why Dawkins has famously said “Before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Because Darwin fills in an essential component of one’s master story – origins.
Dawkins said this because it destroyed the argument from design. Before Darwin, everyone thought species were designed and the question of “Who is the designer?” made it “impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” After Darwin, we now know species evolved by natural selection, that they are NOT designed. (I know you disagree but I’m just pointing out your misconception of Dawkins quote) If you are about to say Evolution itself is part of the Atheist “master story” I really like NO’Ks point that you are then committing the equivocation fallacy.
Well, we need to agree on terms, but one common, and reasonable, Christian approach is that answers to ultimate questions of origins, meaning, and the life to come ARE religious because they are not directly observable by empirical science, and because they are essential to one’s world view.
Good point! Yes, I can understand the perspective here. Just know that Atheists, because of their non religious beliefs, have a different one. So, I agree.
…the fact that they (atheists) trivialize the existence of God, equating it with fairies and spaghetti monsters, and in so doing, make no distinction between the reasonableness of various supernatural or non-empirically verifiable claims, means that IN PRACTICE they function just like “hard atheists” who believe there is no god.
If you don’t believe in a supernatural being how is it possible NOT to trivialize it? We equate God to fairies etc, not to spite religion but because in the Atheist view, they are TRULY equally improbable. The difference in “soft” and “hard” atheism can therefore be rightly illustrated by saying a Hard FSM Atheist says there is absolutely NO FSM and the Soft FSM Atheist says that it is very very very improbable that there is a FSM. I believe that the Hard FSM Atheist holds a “faith” position while the Soft FSM Atheist does not. That is a hugely important distinction between the two and they shouldn’t be conflated lest you create a straw-man.
This is why many atheists are militant anti-faith evangelists. Because they believe that ALL supernatural claims are UNTRUE SUPERSTITIONS, harmful lies.
It’s because atheists like Richard Dawkins feel that claiming there is an all powerful supernatural creator is actually a scientific claim. I can provide more on this point if your interested Seeker. The atheist Stephen Jay Gould was Dawkins main rival and espoused the idea the “science” and “religion” were “separate majesteria.” On this, I happen to agree with Dawkins. Things like miraculous claims are really claims about our physical world and like any “irrational” claim should be attacked and exposed as a sham. Just because the miracle is a religious claim should not convey any special treatment for the claim.
Firstly, the fact that you group creationists and suicide bombers together…
I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion. I know this sounds like a slap in the face to you because you yourself are a creationist, and I swear to you that if there was any way to say it without offending you, please believe that I would do so. The fact is I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Not because of what creationists and suicide bombers believe, but because of the dogma both groups adhere to that causes such irrational acts as flying a plane into a building because the Quran says you get 72 virgins or saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah’s flood because Genesis says so. To me and to atheists like Sam Harris, that kind of disconnect from reality does not make it far fetched that creationists are also capable of dying for their religious beliefs just like suicide bombers or the Kamikaze (Divine Wind). I read that article about creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is a few thousand years old and I want to scream, “Are you insane?!?!?!” The only honest answer I come up with is, “Yeah, they must be, kind of.” Just like suicide bombers.
Being tolerant to the more impotent faiths, the ones that make no claims as to principles outside of personal piety
Ad hominem attack (appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason) I won’t respond to this.
The outright antagonism to faith and belief that religious faith is unhealthy, not to mention dislike for the agnostic and secularist “compromisers” who give space for religion, as demonstrated by the New Atheists” like Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, and Sagan, would obviously and easily morph into oppression…
Who says? You? Again, it’s just your assertion and a straw-man to boot. I disagree.
…esp. when such empowered atheists are motivated by a “positive” goal of ridding humanity of superstition.
If you think they actually believe for one instant they will ever rid the world of superstition you are badly mistaken. I still love the quote of Neils Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics…
No, what they are actually trying to do is promote awareness of how moderate religion fosters fundamentalism IMHO. They are educating people that it is right to criticize religion and that doing so should not be taboo. By exposing religious fundamentalism for the dogma it is, they make it more difficult for fundamentalists to isolate themselves from the “outside” culture. Isolation is something that also breeds fundamentalism. Wafa Sultan is doing this for Islam as Dawkins and Harris are doing this for Christianity. Personally, I like their “in your face” style. To break the “religion is a taboo” mindset they need to lead by example and they do. Bravo!
Believers in such systems are entirely in denial, as evidenced by their total denial of the role their ideologies have played in the modern horrors of Communism and Nazism, respectively.
You are the king of all dead horse beaters Seeker. “There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.” Atheism didn’t kill people. You can argue Hitler, Stalin and Mao did but non-belief itself? No. It’s like arguing my non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the cause of the worlds greatest atrocities. Nonsense! Hitler was a Christian but I don’t make the ridiculous claim that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust; even in light of these pictures.
I say God speaks through dreams, visions, angelic visits, nature, intuition, and people, among other things.
The Flying Spaghetti monster speaks to His followers in the same way. See? Your statement just crumbles.
Again…
It’s a religious claim to say “God Speaks.” It’s an empirical claim to say “God is Silent.” Let me hear a tape recording of God speaking to make me a liar. Until we have ANY evidence of God speaking, we must logically conclude He is silent. Using Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for why He is silent is, He is not there.
"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable." Atheism didn't kill people.
Like I said, total denial. Atheism isn't just about becoming reasonable, it's about relying ONLY on reason, and ridiculing those who rely on any other epistemological method. And when those who ridicule come into power, ridicule turns to control, and eventually, to oppression. I know I have not taken the time to back this up with research, but I am claiming that at the very least, it seems plausible, even probable in light of the oppression of the only atheist governments we've witnessed. Sure, they were more than just atheist, but it was one of their main pillars of belief.
Regarding Hitler, I am not claiming that he was an atheist, sorry to confuse the issue. He claimed Chrisianity, but as discussed, objective non-megalomaniacs can see that his "faith" was not based on orthodox xianity, but rather, his main ideology was an anti-semitic social darwinism.
Let me hear a tape recording of God speaking to make me a liar.
Let me put it this way. I agree that in most cases, audible voices are not verifiable. But I would say "God communicates" – and you would have to claim ignorance in such matters, or make religious claims about how God is allowed to communicate.
I won't respond to this.
Nice dodge. I am not attacking anyone. I am claiming that atheism operates on this principle – if a "faith" does not make claims to anything important, but remains separate from society, and limited to one's personal piety, atheists are not against it. But as soon as a faith goes beyond personal piety, like into abortion politics, for instance, or challenging atheism itself, suddenly the religion is a danger to society. It's no shame to admit to one's method, if that is it. I am not attacking anyone that I know of.
If you think they actually believe for one instant they will ever rid the world of superstition you are badly mistaken.
Of course not, but that won't stop them from trying to minimize the impact and spread of faith. And that's what evangelical atheists are doing, and what Communism did.
I have no assurance or evidence that atheism does NOT produce oppression, and the haughty anti-religious illogic that evangelical atheists (I like saying that, it's almost as much fun as "secular fundmentalist") makes me think that the transformation from liberal atheist to Marxist is merely a matter of giving them social power. Really. I have a lot of faith in the corrupting nature of power, esp. when starting with subjective morals (but I haven't listened to the Public Radio link you provided yet).
If you don't believe in a supernatural being how is it possible NOT to trivialize it?
Respect for others, esp. since you yourself said you just can't know – trivializing comes from thinking you DO know, otherwise, why would you disrespect those who believe otherwise?
BTW, regarding equating the biblical God and the FSM makes a point, but unfortunately, the analogy breaks down because atheists make the same foible of equating all items of faith as equally ridiculous and implausible. They ignore, for instance, the claims of the God, the history and archeology associated with the God's actions with man, etc.
What claims does the FSM make about the principles of relationships, government, salvation, history, relationships? None.
This lack of discrimination is one of atheism's great weaknesses, which I may need to focus on in future posts.
I can tell you really didn't put as much effort in this last post as your other ones. Maybe it's late or you're tired or something which is cool. I would ask that you read the Bertrand Russell essay before you respond again. And please listen to the NPR program if you are interested in where we get our morals from. If you don't comment till next year have a Happy New Year's bro. :)
BTW…
They ignore, for instance, the claims of the God, the history and archeology associated with the God's actions with man, etc.
These can be produced by all the major religions. Ask any Muslim, Jew, Mormon or Hindu for these and you will receive similar "evidence" to what Christianity can provide. Of course, you will all claim that your particular set of "evidence" is the real evidence for your God while the rest are false. I'm not the person to debate this with though since I am a deistic agnostic / religious atheist. Take it to the Muslims, Jews, Mormons and Hindu's.
These can be produced by all the major religions.
Absolutely, but their claims are not all of equal merit, nor are their claims "similar" in an empirical sense. For example, can't you honestly compare whether the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Mormon views of marriage are of equal or lesser value? How about their views of government?
As I have contended, not all religions are the same, nor are they equal. But again, you are demonstrating the atheistic/secularist unwillingness to intellectually discriminate between faiths, because they denigrate them all. It is lazy and unintellectual, and self-serving.
Blah, Blah, Blah. You think Christianity is superior to all other religions. What a shocker! I'll tell you why. Because you're a Christian. If you were born in Israel and where a Jew, you would think the same about being Jewish. Sorry Seeker, but your claims hold no water. The most you can say about other religions is that they are "different" but "better" is in the eye of the beholder.
Why don't you come back to atheism? Everyone is born an Atheist (non-belief) until they get indoctrinated into their parent's religious superstition. You won't have religious crutches to lean on and comfort you but you will become more objective and discerning of what's true. I'll be the first to say, "Welcome to the real world, Seeker!"
You think Christianity is superior to all other religions.
Regardless of my conclusions, at least I am allowing myself to evaluate each on their own merit. And you are entirely incorrect about WHY I conclude so. I am not like the millions who adopt the faith of their parents or culture.
I was raised an agnostic scientist, tried many different lifestyles while in college (punk, redneck, hippie, rasta), became a Christian and practiced it vigorously for 10 years, left it for 6 years to learn from and explore both Buddhism and Yoga, and in the last 4 years, have returned to Christianity. I actually can appreciate what is excellent in some other religions like Buddhism and Yoga without having to accept or reject them entirely, as secularists do.
One of the main reasons I have returned to xianity is because, after having abandoned it with a significant knowledge of it, I have found that it's worldview seems to fit reality best, including it's approaches to guilt and redemption, not to mention government and relationships and many other subjects.
The most you can say about other religions is that they are "different" but "better" is in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely not. In fact, I think we might agree on some principles by which we could evaluate which were unacceptable, better, or worse. But first, I am trying to get you to admit that the lack of any intelligent effort to evaluate the positive or negative worth of various religious systems is a copout.
However, if I can't get you off of that starting block of "all religions are the same," there is no need to progress further – if you are unwilling to admit any value differences, then I will merely step back and maintain my criticism that atheism and fundamentalist secularists are being intellectually lazy, dishonest, and self-serving in their refusal to stop grouping all faith systems into one basket.
It is hard for me to understand why self-proclaimed intelligent people maintain such an anti-intellectual stance, and act as if they can't tell the difference between the Baptist next door and the Islamic sleeper cell down the block.
(people) act as if they can't tell the difference between the Baptist next door and the Islamic sleeper cell down the block.
I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion. I know this sounds like a slap in the face to you because you yourself are a creationist, and I swear to you that if there was any way to say it without offending you, please believe that I would do so. The fact is I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Not because of what creationists and suicide bombers believe, but because of the dogma both groups adhere to that causes such irrational acts as flying a plane into a building because the Quran says you get 72 virgins or saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood because Genesis says so. To me and to atheists like Sam Harris, that kind of disconnect from reality does not make it far fetched that creationists are also capable of dying for their religious beliefs just like suicide bombers or the Kamikaze (Divine Wind). I read that article about creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is a few thousand years old and I want to scream, "Are you insane?!?!?!" The only honest answer I come up with is, "Yeah, they must be, kind of." Just like suicide bombers.
You have not addressed much of anything in my lengthy post above. Have you read Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell yet? Have you listened to MORALITY yet? I read Sermon on the Mount when you asked me to. Will you reciprocate?
I know this sounds like a slap in the face to you because you yourself are a creationist,
Well, I am used to such puerile comparisons on both sides of these types of discussions – it is easy to compare your ideological opponents to hitler or islamic fundamentalists, but it is usually NOT something one can back up with logic, and it amounts to name calling.
But I expect more from people who call themselves intellectual. If they are so bent on their ideology that they have lost the reason to make valid evaluations and comparisons, it is not worth arguing with them because they have left logic for dogmatics.
As I said, I believe that they CAN tell the difference between the anti-abortionist next door (remember how many abortionists have been killed by Christians, and how many Christians preach that) and the sleeper cell down the street.
But the fact that they still want to equate the two, despite whatever superficial similarities exist, means that they are really just playing a game with the public, really lying, in order to buttress their dislike for all religion. It is anti-intellectual, shameful, and downright juvenile.
It is time for thinking atheists and secularists to abandon the "all religions are the same" dogma, not matter what kind of lame justification they want to give for it.
I believe that they CAN tell the difference between the anti-abortionist next door and the sleeper cell down the street.
The fact is I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Not because of what creationists and suicide bombers believe, but because of the dogma both groups adhere to that causes such irrational acts as flying a plane into a building because the Quran says you get 72 virgins or saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's flood because Genesis says so. To me and to atheists like Sam Harris, that kind of disconnect from reality does not make it far fetched that creationists are also capable of dying for their religious beliefs just like suicide bombers or the Kamikaze (Divine Wind). I read that article about creationists claiming the Grand Canyon is a few thousand years old and I want to scream, "Are you insane?!?!?!" The only honest answer I come up with is, "Yeah, they must be, kind of." Just like suicide bombers.
You have not addressed much of anything in my lengthy post above. Have you read Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell yet? Have you listened to MORALITY yet? I read Sermon on the Mount when you asked me to. Will you reciprocate?
OK, let me help you. Just look at the outcomes of these positions. One leads to people who hate and murder innocents (no, not abortionists, Islamists). The other leads to healthy, non-violent debate over philosophic and practical matters in science? Same group? The difference is astoundingly obvious.
But not to the secularist, who sees a demon, er, murderous fundamentalist under every doctrinal tree.
that kind of disconnect from reality does not make it far fetched that creationists are also capable of dying for their religious beliefs
It is frightening to see such an obvious non-sequitur fill supposedly intelligent people with fear and rob them of meaningful discernment. While they waste time fighting the scary Christian fundamentalists, they fail to address the real enemy of freedom (Islam) which slips in via their multicultural ignorance and lack of discrimination (which underrates the real evil of Islam because it refuses to see the difference).
The only honest answer I come up with is, "Yeah, they must be, kind of." Just like suicide bombers.
Again, this weird conclusion just doesn't match the facts. It is an irrational fear, akin to other superstitious nonsense.
Have you read Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell yet? Have you listened to MORALITY yet?
First, I did not ask you to read the SOTM, which BTW, is a short passage. So now you want me to read an entire book? I'll get to it, just don't hold your breath. I *will* sooner get to the Morality mp3.
If you want a rapid response, you will have to succinctly pose the ideas you want me to consider rather than send me off to read books. I know that demands more work out of you that you may not have time for, but I *have* answered, to my knowledge, all of the claims and positions you have made here directly.
And you have yet to sufficiently answer my question – how is it that you can so easily put creationists and suicide bombers in the same bucket, when there are important differences between them? You reasoning for equating them involves a huge leap which logic does not support.
You assume that if someone disagrees with your hypothetical views of origins and flood geology, that they are (a) not relying on reason, (b) therefore one step from killing for their beliefs because they have a religious component, and (c) must therefore be fought as vociferously as suicide bomber Islamists?
That is fear-mongering at it's best. Not only that, it absolves you from having to engage in reasoned debates over these things – which, BTW, Islamists are NOT interested in doing (debate).
Even worse, you use these types of illogical jumps to justify your dislike for religion – and that is the main point – as long as you can characterize all of faith as "the brothers of terrorists," you are safe in your house that secularism pretends to have built.
Unfortunately, your approach is flawed, and your emphasis on creationism as some wildly anti-reason position is not only incorrect, but the majority of Americans are NOT convinced by such blowhard tactics.
You may be convinced that anyone who disagrees with you on matters of faith or science must be crazy, but it only displays your own flight from reason, logical argument, honest analysis, and your own frightening need to build a world without God.
Again, this failure to rightly analyze the merits and differences between faiths, is IMO, one of the great unexamined blind spots of modern secularism and atheism – it's an anti-intellectual, self-protecting fear tactic that actually diminishes any power that secularist arguments might have.
It's to your own benefit that you come clean on such and stop parading this anti-intellectual ignorance as fact.
So now you want me to read an entire book?
No, just Bertrand Russell’s, “Why I am not a Christian.”
Just look at the outcomes of these positions.
I am. Creationism and suicide bombers. The outcome from both is fundamentalism.
The difference is astoundingly obvious.
The fact is I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. Not because of what creationists and suicide bombers believe, but because of the dogma both groups adhere to that causes such irrational acts as flying a plane into a building because the Quran says you get 72 virgins or saying that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah’s flood because Genesis says so.
But not to the secularist, who sees a demon, er, murderous fundamentalist under every doctrinal tree.
Straw-man
It is frightening to see such an obvious non-sequitur fill supposedly intelligent people with fear and rob them of meaningful discernment.
Straw-man
While they waste time fighting the scary Christian fundamentalists, they fail to address the real enemy of freedom (Islam) which slips in via their multicultural ignorance and lack of discrimination (which underrates the real evil of Islam because it refuses to see the difference).
Straw-man
It is an irrational fear, akin to other superstitious nonsense.
Straw-man
…rather than send me off to read books.
You mean essay?
I’ll get to it, just don’t hold your breath.
Why don’t you just read it? The mp3 (chimps and trolley rides) is only 22 minutes long. You are the one who asked me, “That’s nice to say, but on what basis do you decide that this is wrong?” I refer you to my answer and you get nasty with me to answering you.
how is it that you can so easily put creationists and suicide bombers in the same bucket, when there are important differences between them?
I don’t think you comprehend what bucket I am putting them into. I’ll repeat a single sentence so it’s quicker for you to read. “I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion.”
The bucket is religious indoctrination where children are taught from a very young age to believe completely in either Jesus or Allah. Religious dogma where children are taught from a very young age to believe in the dogma of Islam or Christianity respectively. Delusion, because one of the religions must be wrong and it may be both.
You assume that if someone disagrees with your hypothetical views of origins and flood geology, that they are…
a) not relying on reason
Straw-man. No. This should read “relying on the religious dogma as outlined in Genesis.”
(b) therefore one step from killing for their beliefs because they have a religious component
Straw-man. No. This should read “They are both working from a set of beliefs that are based on their respective holy books about things they CANNOT know like 72 virgins waiting in heaven and women being made out of ribs.” Both are deluded. (Yes, I already know you think you’re own religion is not the deluded one: that’s another discussion)
(c) must therefore be fought as vociferously as suicide bomber Islamists?
No. Not creationists and suicide bombers but the fundamentalism that fuels their disconnect from reality. The fundamentalism Christianity and Islam share is the extremists from each religion interpret their holy books literally.
That is fear-mongering at it’s best.
No. This is based on a straw-man (a, b, c) above which you erected.
Not only that, it absolves you from having to engage in reasoned debates over these things.
No. Again, this is based on a straw-man (a, b, c) above which you erected.
…which, BTW, Islamists are NOT interested in doing (debate).
It seems Christians are not interested in doing debate either because at this point I’m getting more religious based arguments from you instead of the logical arguments you started this post so promisingly with. I can’t debate with your faith because you can just say, “This is what I believe and no reason, logic or evidence can budge me from my position.”
Even worse, you use these types of illogical jumps to justify your dislike for religion.
Straw-man. And oft repeated by you as well though repetition does not make something true. I don’t dislike religion. I’ve said this above as well.
…as long as you can characterize all of faith as “the brothers of terrorists,” you are safe in your house that secularism pretends to have built.
Straw-man. I don’t characterize all of faith as “brothers of terrorists.” Fundamentalists of both religions share the similarity of interpreting their holy books literally but even then, I don’t see them as “brothers.”
you are safe in your house that secularism pretends to have built.
What in the world are you talking about?
your emphasis on creationism as some wildly anti-reason position
Dead on. Creationism is faith based. One can’t reason with the faithful. They hold their beliefs regardless of how good an argument against it is. Faith is unreasonable.
the majority of Americans are NOT convinced by such blowhard tactics.
This is your Christian propaganda again. The fact is, Americans are seriously lacking in proper science education. The influence of the Christian right is making America more ignorant of science compared to the rest of the civilized world. Things like “faith healing” should not be taught over medicine. I can only hope that education improves and the prevailing majority of superstition weakens.
You may be convinced that anyone who disagrees with you on matters of faith or science must be crazy…
Strawman. Not crazy (unless you consider delusion a form of insanity) Definitely ignorant and deluded if they are a creationist or suicide bomber.
…but it only displays your own flight from reason.
No, it displays your own religious fundamentalism.
…your own frightening need to build a world without God.
No. straw-man. I don’t feel any need for such a world.
Again, this failure to rightly analyze the merits and differences between faiths
Staw-man. I think each religion has it merits however your use of the word “rightly” translates to “Christianity is the right religion and Islam is wrong: there is no room for argument”
…it’s an anti-intellectual, self-protecting fear tactic that actually diminishes any power that secularist arguments might have.
This is your Christian propaganda speaking again.
It’s to your own benefit that you come clean on such and stop parading this anti-intellectual ignorance as fact.
It’s nice to call people names like anti-intellectual, ignorant, and blowhard yet your support for these attacks really leaves much to be desired. I would really like to dispense with the tiresome name calling and return to the issues.
the fundamentalism that fuels their disconnect from reality.
I'll have to spend more time analyzing and responding to this, but in a nutshell
a. you have not established that creationists are believing something disconnected from reality – you may believe that, but it's really your "straw man" approach to creationism that's at fault. It amounts to ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing the claims at hand. "That's so ridiculous" is not reasoned argument.
b. you have not established why Christian fundamentalism is as bad as Islamic. You think that because their foundational assumptions are faith assumptions, that they are equally incorrect, equally dangerous, and equally anti-intellectual. This is absolutely false, and will lead you to many false and destructive conclusions.
c. you have decided to lump all faith-based groups together in your fight for reason, and miss the fact that your intolerance, bigotry, lack of practical and ideological discernment, misplaced analogies putting all faith in the same negative bucket, and horrific non-sequiturs make you WORSE than most you criticize.
Not worse than Islamists for sure, but such logic builds the foundation for future support of religious persecution – you are drinking the cool aid of Marx and Stalin, all the time telling yourself that that is not where your logic leads.
d. Your persistence in wanting to demonize all religion is an amazing psychosis to observe, akin to seeing how the National Socialists of Germany were slowly duped and self-deluded into Nazism.
What is amazing is not only the lies you tell yourself about religion and it's opposition to science and freedom, but how you lump bad faith with good in order to dismiss it all, and justify not only your rejection of faith, but the arguments for legal isolation of faith from public life, which, when atheism/secularism is given power, will lead to oppression of religion.
It has nowhere else to go! The undercurrent of disdain and acrimony towards faith is palpable, and bursts to the surface in fits of patronizing insults. Such deep fear and hatred can only lead to oppression if given power. And it has in the recent past, and will again because that is the nature of the beast that denies God and relies solely on the limited, self-serving reason of mankind.
And I am not just calling names. I believe that many of the arguments that secularists use against religion amount to no more than fear-based non-sequiturs, which shut down logical discourse on the value or religion, i.e. they are anti-intellectual. I am not calling you that, only your approach.
In fact, every time I now hear the equating of Islamic fundamentalists with Christian ones, I believe that I can safely assume that the speaker, while he may be honestly expressing his perspective, has been duped by the anti-intellectual arguments of the secular and atheistic fundamentalists.
I may need to assume that he is now out of range of reason, and can only see demons where faith exists. It is lamentable, but this tactic is now so common as to be almost a de-facto characteristic of secularists.
The only bright side is that thinking people can easily spot such unmitigated, self-deceptive bias, and dismiss it. The down side is that non-thinking people can be cowed into believing it, with it's appearance of intelligence, and it's appeal to scientific orthodoxy (in the way religionists appeal to biblical authority) where no such valid conclusions actually exist.
"Who would DARE to contradict the great and might SCIENTISTS!" thunders the man behind the secularist curtain. Who indeed.
seeker is a very amusing fellow. He squeals with indignation because someone dares to dismiss this religious views for the unsupported, destructive, irrational nonsense they are, while doing the very same thing to others! I well remember his vicious, dismissive, ignorant and near-psychotic attacks on homosexuality and homosexuals – and all based on his religious superstitions. And now he dares to demand rational argument! How does one argue rationally with the irrational? Where is the evidence for the existence of the abrahamic sky-god, or the truth of his holy books? I still have yet to see it. All this is simply ridiculous. Other than their political power (based purely on their numbers), what right do christianists have to demand serious attention and respect?
I'll take the SCIENTISTS over the religionists ANY day. Religion has NOTHING behind the curtain.
That which is asserted without proof may also be dismissed without proof.
a. you have not established that creationists are believing something disconnected from reality.
Of course you MUST say this because it contradicts your faith otherwise. I understand, but creationism vs. evolution is not the thread topic here. Here is what people see from the the outside looking in upon the creationist bubble. Only Christian creationists believe in Genesis. Creationists isolate themselves from mainstream society by indoctrinating their children with their religion's particular creation mythology. Creationists have their very own set of books for this which are based on Genesis. Muslim suicide bombers do the same kind of indoctrination with their children. From a very young age they are taught Islamic dogma in isolation. Christian Creationists are disconnected from reality just like Muslim suicide bombers. I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion.
b. you have not established why Christian fundamentalism is as bad as Islamic.
Why do you have it in your head this is what I am trying to do? I would rather have a creationist or someone who believes she has been abducted by aliens as a neighbor rather than a suicide bomber. What they all have in common is a delusion.
c. you have decided to lump all faith-based groups together
No, I see people of different religions as distinct groups. In fact, I don't even lump Christians together. There are Christians who do not take the Bible literally. The Christians and Muslims who take their holy books literally are fundamentalists and this is perhaps what you perceive as "lumping."
d. Your persistence in wanting to demonize all religion is an amazing psychosis to observe
Simply false. I am not trying to demonize all religion.
The undercurrent of disdain and acrimony towards faith is palpable, and bursts to the surface in fits of patronizing insults.
Yikes! I've reduced you babbling. I have nothing against faith my friend. The sooner you understand that, the better.
And it has in the recent past, and will again because that is the nature of the beast that denies God and relies solely on the limited, self-serving reason of mankind.
…every time I now hear the equating of Islamic fundamentalists with Christian ones
This is what you hear but it's different from what I am saying. I don't equate them. I do think that they have in common are dogma, indoctrination, and delusion.
"Who would DARE to contradict the great and might SCIENTISTS!"
I still love the quote of Neils Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics…
No, what they (New Atheists) are actually trying to do is promote awareness of how moderate religion fosters fundamentalism IMHO. They are educating people that it is right to criticize religion and that doing so should not be taboo. By exposing religious fundamentalism for the dogma it is, they make it more difficult for fundamentalists to isolate themselves from the "outside" culture. Isolation is something that also breeds fundamentalism. Wafa Sultan is doing this for Islam and Dawkins and Harris are doing this for Christianity. Personally, I like their "in your face" style. To break the "religion is a taboo" mindset they need to lead by example and they do. Bravo!
I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion.
I think your system of cause and effect is scrambled, and that causes you to inappropriatly evaluate the two. Just because two groups believe something that you find unreasonable doesn't make them (a) fundamentalists, or (b) "just like" one another.
But I see your contention – you don't like religious indoctrination because it is immune to reason.
But your fallacy here is that creationists are not working in the arena of reason. In fact, though you disagree with their conclusions, they are using valid scientific approaches to historic and scientific data, even if they are doubting some of your forgone assumptions.
I know you hear creationist arguments and wring your hands at their supposed rediculousness, but if you can't respond with a logic that shows the fallacy of their claims, you aren't really being reasonable, you are being dogmatic and dismissive.
Why do you have it in your head this is what I am trying to do?
Because that's what I hear in sentences like "Christian Creationists are disconnected from reality just like Muslim suicide bombers. I think atheists lump the two together because in our minds both are the end products of institutionalized indoctrination, dogma and delusion."
What other reason would you "lump them together" for, except to obfuscate their differences? Your unfortunate grouping of these two says to the world that (a) you find them equally dangerous and evil, and (b) you lack the ability to tell such people apart. It looks like demonization by association.
There are Christians who do not take the Bible literally.
Actually, there is an entire spectrum, from hyper-literalists "biblicists" to liberal. Broadbrushing all serious Christians as "literalists" is a pejorative move that, again, is overly broad, employing the demonization by association ruse ("you share some things in common with the bad group, therefore you must be bad also"), and is also dismissive.
I do think that they have in common are dogma, indoctrination, and delusion.
Ohh, well in that case, let me say that I think evolutionists and bombers, in my view, definitely share these characteristics. Isn't that a helpful comparison?
They are educating people that it is right to criticize religion and that doing so should not be taboo.
It would be nice if that was all they were trying to do. I actually agree with that point. But what I disagree with is their belittling of faith as backwards, superstitious, of negative social and moral value, anti-science, and worthy of being left behind by intelligent people.
Personally, I like their "in your face" style. To break the "religion is a taboo" mindset they need to lead by example and they do.
Then I hope you will also appreciate the same style in Creationists who are breaking the "questioning evolutionary orthodoxy is taboo" mindset that infects science.
We see it as anti-science (being wrong, it hinders science), anti-human (due to it's logical and historical relationship with eugenics), and not to mention, anti-God.
Just because two groups believe something that you find unreasonable doesn’t make them (a) fundamentalists, or (b) “just like” one another.
What makes them (a) fundamentalists is they take their holy books literally. As Jim pointed out…
This is what makes creationists fundamentalists Seeker. You take your Holy Book literally. This is the same thing that Islamic suicide bombers do with their Holy Book.
But your fallacy here is that creationists are not working in the arena of reason.
Creationists are working in the arena of Faith not Reason. You say creationists are are “using valid scientific approaches to historic and scientific data.” I’ve already presented you with sworn Federal Court testimony and documents showing how intelligent design advocates did a “Search Replace All” to substitute every occurrence of the word “creation” with “design” in their so called “creation science” text books. Clearly, creationism is religion (Genesis) not scientific reasoning. The creationist mechanism for the origin of species is “God did it.” As scientific theories go, “God did it” sucks ass. Fundamentalists who claim creationism are rightly laughed out of the scientific community because they are victims of indoctrination, dogma and delusion. Fundamentalist creationists are pitiful.
Now, what you are going to do is try to turn this around and say it is non creationists who are pitiful and deluded. Whatever. It’s what you as a creationist are forced to do. Creationists, being fundamentalists, take their Holy Book as literally true so they can’t question it. Instead they are forced to question anything and everything that contradicts it, but never scripture itself. To do so means a loss of faith. You are truly caught between a rock and a hard place and that makes your plight pitiful.
Your unfortunate grouping of these two says to the world that (a) you find them equally dangerous and evil, and (b) you lack the ability to tell such people apart.
(a) No, I don’t. I would rather have a creationist or someone who believes she has been abducted by aliens as a neighbor rather than a suicide bomber.
(b) I can tell them apart by their actions. What I can’t differentiate is their delusion. A delusion is a delusion whether it’s believing aliens took you on their space ship, 72 virgins await you in heaven, or women come from ribs and snakes talk.
Actually, there is an entire spectrum, from hyper-literalists “biblicists” to liberal. Broadbrushing all serious Christians as “literalists” is a pejorative move
I know you hate it when I use the dictionary as a reference but “literal interpretation of scripture” is what fundamentalism is. Call it pejorative, fine. Just realize that Christians defined themselves as fundamentalists. As Jim said, “from a 20th century movement that was in response to Christian Liberalism.” I realize you have all sorts of different groups within Christianity like “Dominionists” that are even more extreme. It’s irrelevant to how “Fundamentalism” is defined in the dictionary. According to the English Language Dictionary Creationists, Dominionists, and radical Muslims are all Fundamentalists. They all take their holy books literally. I know you don’t like it but the truth hurts.
But what I disagree with is their belittling of faith as backwards, superstitious, of negative social and moral value, anti-science, and worthy of being left behind by intelligent people.
It’s because atheists like Richard Dawkins feel that claiming there is an all powerful supernatural creator is actually a scientific claim. I can provide more on this point if your interested Seeker. The atheist Stephen Jay Gould was Dawkins main rival and espoused the idea the “science” and “religion” were “separate majesteria.” On this, I happen to agree with Dawkins. Things like miraculous claims are really claims about our physical world and like any “irrational” claim should be attacked and exposed as a sham. Just because the miracle is a religious claim should not convey any special treatment for the claim.
We (Seekerish Christians) see it (atheism) as anti-science (being wrong, it hinders science)
No, atheism is pro-science.
anti-human (due to it’s logical and historical relationship with eugenics)
You are the king of all dead horse beaters Seeker. “There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.” Atheism didn’t kill people. You can argue Hitler, Stalin and Mao did but non-belief itself? No. It’s like arguing my non-belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the cause of the worlds greatest atrocities. Nonsense! Hitler was a Christian but I don’t make the ridiculous claim that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust; even in light of these pictures.
…and not to mention, anti-God.
Atheists are not anti-God anymore than they are anti-leprechaun. They just lack belief in both.