Sam Schulman writes at OpinionJournal that the “new atheist” has lost or ignored what made their forebearers interesting, while not adding any new information to the debate.
What is new about the new atheists? It’s not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won’t encounter a single point you didn’t hear in your freshman dormitory. It’s their tone that is novel. Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote–both of which, the new atheists assure us, they do in lockstep with the pope and Jerry Falwell.
….
There is no such sympathy among the new apostles of atheism–to find it, one has to look to believers. Anyone who has actually taught young people and listened to them knows that it is often the students who come from a trained sectarian background–Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Mormon–who are best at grasping different systems of belief and unbelief. Such students know, at least, what it feels like to have such a system, and can understand those who have very different ones. The new atheists remind me of other students from more “open-minded” homes–rigid, indifferent, puzzled by thought and incapable of sympathy.
The new atheists fail too often simply for want of charm or skill. Twenty-first century atheism hasn’t found its H.G. Wells or its George Bernard Shaw, men who flattered their audiences, excited them and persuaded them by making them feel intelligent. Here is Sam Harris, for instance, addressing those who wonder if destroying human embryos in the process of stem cell research might be morally dicey: “Your qualms . . . are obscene.”
The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves–a remarkably incurious elite.
How strange, because aren't Christians regularly preaching about the importance of abandoning things like, oh, I don't know, contraception, pornography, sex in general, single parent families, homosexuality, etc? And aren't those things that, to one degree or another, most Americans enjoy?
Everybody sermonizes to the converted. Everybody. Those that attempt to do otherwise are shown the door, more often than not.
Christians lecturing atheists about being rigid, close-minded and arrogant? The irony is delicious.
Twenty-first century atheism hasn't found its H.G. Wells or its George Bernard Shaw,
I guess Bertrand Russel doesn't count?
Christians lecturing atheists about being rigid, close-minded and arrogant? The irony is delicious.
It is delicious also because they are correct.
Seeker,
You're so ironic that it boggles the mind. You seem to genuinely believe that you're the open minded one here, even doing everything short of calling for genocides against those that disagree with you.
LOL, "there you go again." Genocide is the hallmark of institutional atheism.
Of *course*, religionists have been guilty of arrogance and clsoed-mindedness, just like any humans who subscribe to an ideology that makes claims about morality and God. Louis is right to say that it is ironic.
But let's not let the irony of it cause us to miss the point that the new atheism's intolerance is one step from being genocidal – just put them in power, and !SHAZAM!, the persecution begins. At least, that's what history shows us. Maybe this time it will be different?
Genocide is the hallmark of institutional atheism. At least, that's what history shows us.
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.
"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
You are assuming that atheism = reasonable. Atheism, while it claims to depend on reason, does so exclusively. This stance, in itself, is UNreasonable and foolhardy.
This is no dead horse. Atheism's only track record is negative.
Hitler wasn't an atheist. He wasn't a devout Christian, either. Can you leave him alone? Seriously. It's just a conversation. When you bring Hitler into it, you look silly. But even supposing that Hitler, like Stalin, was a resolute atheist, all you can take from that is that atheists are capable of being monstrous, too. That fact is as obvious as it is irrelevant.
Body counts are similarly irrelevant. Were Stalin and Mao the biggest killers in the history of the world? If not, they surely rank high on the list. Does this mean that atheism motivated their crimes?
Most atheists — myself included — would say No, but that's really not important. Even if we suppose that atheism was the cause of dozens of millions of murders, we are not in a better position to argue that Jesus loves us, or that Moses parted the Red Sea.
As Cineaste pointed out, not believing in Yahweh is no more likely to promote mass-murder than not believing in the FSM is. But even if that accusation had merit, it doesn't at all point to the existence of God. Not even slightly.
Hitler wasn't an atheist. He wasn't a devout Christian, either. Can you leave him alone? Seriously.
Correct. If anything, he was a social darwinist. Separate bogey man.
If not, they surely rank high on the list. Does this mean that atheism motivated their crimes?
It's not just motivation here – it's that atheism formed one major pillar of their underlying world view, and in their minds, the justification for their desire to eliminate religion as part of their plan to help mankind.
Not only that, but the fact that they relied on reason alone led to where human reason always leads without God – to a world of subjective morality where the strong humans rule the weak without any moral moorings. Eventually, we end up killing.
That's why the US system of government, based on unalienable rights given and determined by God, not man, and the appeal to "the laws of nature and nature's God", has led to more freedom than any bankrupt atheistic world view. It sounds nice to rely only on "reason and science," but that view is not really reasonable because it does not reflect the reality of man's nature (fallen and given to corruption) nor the reality of God and the moral law.
As Cineaste pointed out, not believing in Yahweh is no more likely to promote mass-murder than not believing in the FSM is.
I entirely disagree, because Yahweh is associated with a specific set of morals and ethics, as well as a historical context. The FSM is merely the mocking creation of juvenile anti-religionists. Oh wait, I'm judging.
Never the less, while atheists and other anti-religionists (ARs) are incapable or unwilling to discriminate between and evaluate supernatural or religious claims, and therefore, can't tell the difference between believing in Yahweh and the FSM, I think most of us just don't buy the atheist rhetoric.
I find it limiting, intellectually narrow, associated with many evils of recent history, illogical, unreasonable, and out of touch with the reality of the spiritual world and God.
Hitler wasn't an atheist. He wasn't a devout Christian, either. Can you leave him alone? Seriously.
[Correct. If anything, he (Hitler) was a social Darwinist. Separate bogey man.]
That would be a resounding, No. For some reason, Seeker thinks his imaginary God is more believable than everyone else's imaginary God. This is not a surprise, Muslims believe the same of their God. Then he blames everyone else's imaginary God (Allah, the FSM, etc.), or lack thereof, for all the world's atrocities, past and present.
Stewart, we can't reason with Seeker on this. He is a creationist after all. Seeker even believes in witchcraft, demons and possession. These beliefs are consistent with the "born-again" evangelical dogma. It doesn't surprise me you don't want to talk to him anymore. It's like talking to a wall sometimes: like now.
For some reason, Seeker thinks his imaginary God is more believable than everyone else's imaginary God.
Not just "some" reason, I outlined my reasons. Address my actual claims if you think you want to argue your point with reason.
Then he blames everyone else's imaginary God (Allah, the FSM, etc.), or lack thereof, for all the world's atrocities, past and present.
Actually, I DO blame bad ideologies for their results, esp. when it can be shown by LOGIC that the results flow logically from their primary assumptions and principles. This is very different from deriding a movement based on fringe crazies who reach illogical conclusions.
So for instance, Islam's teachings on God and govt (no separation) clearly leads to theocracy, which is bad. Therefore, I conclude that he God of Islam is not right.
Islam teaches that unbelievers should be taxed, oppressed, and killed. And it practices such. It is therefore worthy of condemnation.
The logical links between atheism and totalitarianism have been explored here, and I have attempted to make logical assertions and historical observations supporting those assertions. Same with the links between Darwinism and eugenics.
YOUR "all religions are the same", FSM arguments are merely anti-intellectual and juvenile nonsense. They are not logical or reasonable. Even if the point you are trying to make has some validity (how can you evaluate equally non-verifiable claims), it is lost in your total lack of clarity in what you are trying to say, not to mention your ad hominem and mocking methods. I mean, they just don't work.
He is a creationist after all. Seeker even believes in witchcraft, demons and possession.
Again, this is another logical fallacy, a nice way to avoid the argument at hand by namecalling. If you can't address the issue, at least admit that you are either tired or unable.
seeker wrote:
"I find it limiting, intellectually narrow, associated with many evils of recent history, illogical, unreasonable, and out of touch with the reality of the spiritual world and God."
Please provide evidence for "the reality of the spiritual world and God."
Let me say this – just because empirical science can not measure or prove something does not mean that it does not exist, so the absence of the type of proof you are demanding does not disprove the existence of such.
This is one of the limits of science and reason. I affirm *without direct proof* that such things exist, and I am not alone.
For example, the great phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…" declares such moral and spiritual truths to be self-evident, not empirically proven. This is the same logic that Paul uses on Romans 1 to condemn those who deny the existence and nature of God, when these are "clearly displayed in what has been made."
I understand you want to avoid superstition and what not, but if you demand empirical evidence for the spiritual, you may be disappointed.
My point is that atheism MUST fail because it is at odds with reality, including the reality of God. Is there empirical, direct evidence for God? Nope. If that is your sole measuring stick, I understand. However, I pity the person who must live in the meaningless world of the material.
I've heard the pleas about such views not being meaningless, but I beg to differ without any more argument.
In that case, there's really nothing more to be said. You have just admitted that your belief-system has no basis in fact. Thanks.
No problem, I am being honest. If you reject the faith because of it, that is your decision. When and if you meet God (if I am right), you can tell him that he failed to provide proof.
YOUR "all religions are the same", FSM arguments are merely anti-intellectual and juvenile nonsense. They are not logical or reasonable.
So, what is a intellectual, mature, logical and reasonable argument from Seeker's perspective? Answer…
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Job 39:9-10 (King James Version)
It's not that there is no basis for fact for Christianity. But there must be something that you believe in beyond what you can prove emperically.
You may believe, without any real emperical proof, that noting exists that cannot be proven emperically, but then you have defeated your own argument.
Things such as love, hope, dreams, ideas, exist but that cannot be quantified or proven emperically. When you remove God because he does not prove himself, then you must also remove all non-tangible things from your life for the same reason.
We believe in love, not because a scale measures it, but because we feel the effects of it. These is evidence that love exists. You look at actions, words spoken, etc. They point to the existence of love. They do not "prove" it, but they give evidence for it.
The same is true with God and all metaphysical things. There is evidences for it, but you will never find your "proof" because you place the bar unreasonably high. If you choose to live your life in such a way as to discount or ignore everything that cannt be "proven," then I pity you now more than ever.
I have presented my arguments, but you have NOT ANSWERED ONE.
I, Stewart, Sam, and Louis have answered your "Atheists are responsible for the world's genocidal atrocities" rhetoric. The problem is, you are being unreasonable. This is typical. As I said, speaking to you on this is no different than speaking to a wall. Look at the comments from ALL of us above to notice this theme. You are being so blatantly dogmatic that delusion becomes the only explanation for your pigheadedness; comparisons to unicorns, witches, demons etc. inevitably follow. Schulman accuses atheists of being intolerant but ironically, one need only read your rhetoric to realize you are the bigot, not Dawkins, Harris, or Dennett.
Things such as love, hope, dreams, ideas, exist but that cannot be quantified or proven empirically.
Which has nothing to do with God's existence does it?
There is evidences for it (God), but you will never find your "proof" because you place the bar unreasonably high.
My bar is very low. Some kind of circumstantial or empirical evidence would be nice. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for love, hope, dreams, idea's (2+2) etc. but not a shred for God. At this point, please don't repeat these fallacious arguments as evidence for God. They don't fly logically.
Another thing, revelation DOES NOT pass as evidence. Why don't I accept revelatory evidence? Because Aaron that leprechaun I told you about only reveals himself to me.
There are stories of God's like Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Odin, Mithra etc. There are also stories of leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, and flying spaghetti monsters. In terms of evidence, or lack thereof, Gods and fairy tales are indistinguishable.
It's funny that you say you have a low bar of evidence, but then you reference an atheists dismall of any and all evidence as proof that all of these arguments must be "fallacious."
You want evidence for God, but all evidence that points to God is "fallacious," therefore there must be no evidence for God. It is hard to get a square answer into circular reasoning.
I think love, dreams, etc. have to do with God because you are dealing with metaphysical things that cannot be emperically proven.
I do want to read the whole article you linked to by Russell, but having read the first one he is already in a logical pitfall. I wanted to comment here about it, but that takes away from the flow of discussion so I will answer that in a post.
The stories issues is an interesting one. I find C.S. Lewis very convincing on this, in that he argues that all of the myths point to a True Myth. The reason you find many of the similarities between creation myths and other stories and those within Christianity is that there is a True Myth out there that has inspired the others.
As far as evidence, I'm not sure there are too many individuals who believe in fairy tales (ie unicorns, leprechauns, etc.), but you will find a good deal, a majority even, of people, educated, PhDs, normal people, the whole gamut, who believe and trust in the existence of God. The comparison really doesn't hold water.
Belief does equal truth by any means, but it is entirely illogical to argue no one (fairy tales) is the same as billions (belief in God).
…you reference an atheists dismall of any and all evidence as proof that all of these arguments must be "fallacious."
Is he just ANY atheist or one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century?
You want evidence for God, but all evidence that points to God is "fallacious," therefore there must be no evidence for God. It is hard to get a square answer into circular reasoning.
Well, lets hear the evidence then. If it is already mentioned in the Bertrand Russell argument as fallacious then it falls to you to prove where Bertrand Russell's logic fails. Just remember when you post about how Bertrand Russell's arguments are fallacies, I want a share of the royalties because Russell is a world renowned intellectual. It would be like you proving NIETZSCHE, Satre or Heidegger wrong. Good luck!
I think love, dreams, etc. have to do with God because you are dealing with metaphysical things that cannot be empirically proven.
I can't prove gravity exists on Pluto but I can infer via circumstantial evidence.
I find C.S. Lewis very convincing on this, in that he argues that all of the myths point to a True Myth.
How did Lewis come to the conclusion that the original myth was actually true?
As far as evidence, I'm not sure there are too many individuals who believe in fairy tales (ie unicorns, leprechauns, etc.), but you will find a good deal, a majority even, of people, educated, PhDs, normal people, the whole gamut, who believe and trust in the existence of God.
Which also has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Millions of Christians also believe Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
Belief does equal truth by any means, but it is entirely illogical to argue no one (fairy tales) is the same as billions (belief in God).
Yes it is. Creation myths are fairy tales so billions actually do believe in fairy tales like those written in the Bible, Quran, etc. Unicorns play an important role in both books. The most effective fairy tales are a combination of truth and fantasy and the most effective lies incorporate a grain of truth.
Again with the circular reasoning – My belief is equal to a fairy tale because you believe my beliefs to be a fairy tale. Kind of hard to get past that.
Still wondering where you are going with the unicorn thing. What kind of "important role" does a unicorn play in the Bible? Did I miss Jesus riding one to heaven or something? Maybe he said, "Blessed are the unicorns."
I saw you quote a passage for the King James that said "unicorn" but that is hardly an important role. I will say one thing on your pull quote of that. English words from 1611 don't quite have the same meaning now, not to mention the translation from ancient Hebrew. So it can hardly be infered from that quote, that the Bible says the modern understanding of unicorns exists.
I understand that Russell is a renouned atheist intellectual, that is why I was so shocked to see his weak argument against First Cause.
I do find it interesting that you find it impossible for me to disprove or even compare with the intellectual genuis of atheistic philosophers from the past (or present), but routinely you dismiss with a simply phrase thousands of years of theistic philosophy from thinkers at least as great and smart as Russell.
My belief is equal to a fairy tale because you believe my beliefs to be a fairy tale. Kind of hard to get past that.
Analogy: You believe the moon is made of cheese. I believe this is false.
Ya, it is hard to get past that.
What kind of "important role" does a unicorn play in the Bible?
Numbers 23:22 (King James Version) — God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 (King James Version) — God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deuteronomy 33:17 (King James Version)– His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Psalm 22:21 (King James Version) — Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Psalm 29:6 (King James Version) — He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 92:10 (King James Version) — But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isaiah 34:7 (King James Version) — And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Unicorns, fairy tale creatures, are mentioned quite often in the Bible.
I also like the commentary…
I do find it interesting that you find it impossible for me to disprove or even compare with the intellectual genuis of atheistic philosophers from the past (or present), but routinely you dismiss with a simply phrase thousands of years of theistic philosophy from thinkers at least as great and smart as Russell.
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Satre, Russell, Hume and a host of other modern atheist philosophers have responded to the great theologians of yore. Where are the great theologians of today? Where have you gone St. Augustine? Where have you gone Anselm? I'll tell you. Scientific discoveries like heliocentrism and evolution doomed their arguments to obsolescence.
"Atheists are responsible for the world's genocidal atrocities"
I think some reflective listening might be in order. Perhaps we are not hearing one another. For instance, I have never said that *atheists* are responsible for genocide, but atheism. This is a critical difference – while atheists may be as earnest and human as the rest of us, and perhaps even more intelligent, the fact is that their ideology, being flawed, fails when you try to scale it up.
So tell me once more now that I am paying attention, why can't atheism share some, maybe even most of the credit for the sins of communism? I mean, I understand the argument that "thsoe governments were not really representative of atheism, but were functioning as religious power structures." But my answer to that is that this does not excuse atheism because the logical application of the atheistic disdain for faith is that, in order to help humanity, they INEVITABLY oppress faith from a government level.
But even if you don't follow that logic, to deny that atheism had more than a little something to do with these nation states seems disingenuous because it seems so obvious that these self-proclaimed atheist states were taking the atheist ideal to its logical conclusion.
Which has nothing to do with God's existence does it?
(Eyes rolling) – You missed the point entirely, which is that just because such things can't be quantified by science doesn't make them unreal. Same with God.
As far as evidence, I'm not sure there are too many individuals who believe in fairy tales (ie unicorns, leprechauns, etc.), but you will find a good deal, a majority even, of people, educated, PhDs, normal people, the whole gamut, who believe and trust in the existence of God. The comparison really doesn't hold water.
I've been making this same point, that all supernatural claims are not equally incredible. I mean, even if the atheist thinks they are, many many people make a distinction between unicorns and the Yahweh. Question for the atheist – WHY do people make this distinction? What do you think people are doing when making this distinction?
Creation myths are fairy tales
Strictly speaking the Christian record of creation is not a myth – while myths typically involve archetypes rather than real, historical actors, the bible is not claiming such an approach.
In fact, you might also say that the "big bang" theory is a creation myth – I mean, this "singularity" comes out of nowhere, and then BOOM! However, scientists are looking for a real historical event, not a myth. But they can't prove it, they have to extrapolate back based on existing data.
This is exactly what Creationists do – they make assumptions about a first cause, and then take what data we have and try to match it up.
The only major difference here is that Christians believe in a personality (God) as first cause, and that there was an intelligent creation. This supernatural element, however, in my mind, does not make it a "myth."
I do understand the atheist rejection of this logic. They see all supernatural claims as mythical. That is a foundational assumption for them, which causes them to evaluate all supernatural claims as equally silly. They are forced to that conclusion.
Perhaps Sam Harris has come up with a more reasonable approach to evaluating religion, since he is obviously intelligent and well-spoken.
I have never said that *atheists* are responsible for genocide, but atheism. This is a critical difference
Okay, here is the revised response.
I, Stewart, Sam, and Louis have answered your "Atheism is responsible for the world's genocidal atrocities" rhetoric. The problem is, you are being unreasonable. This is typical. As I said, speaking to you on this is no different than speaking to a wall. Look at the comments from ALL of us above to notice this theme. You are being so blatantly dogmatic that delusion becomes the only explanation for your pigheadedness; comparisons to unicorns, witches, demons etc. inevitably follow. Schulman accuses atheists of being intolerant but ironically, one need only read your rhetoric to realize you are the bigot, not Dawkins, Harris, or Dennett.
OK, so did I restate your argument correctly? That these "atheist states" do not really represent what happens when you scale atheism up to a civil government? That there was some perverting factor like megalomania or something?
Are you asserting that atheism does not lead to persecution and oppression of faith? My assertion is that, the deep despising of faith inherent in atheism easily morphs into such atrocities, esp. because of human nature's bent towards totalitarianism when given power. In fact, I would argue, that without some balancing principle to follow, atheists are BOUND to try to eliminate religion, for the "good of humankind."
What principle keeps atheists from this obvious conclusion? What ethic? I mean, we now have "evangelical atheists" who are verbally deriding not only the fundamentalists religionists, but also the moderates, even the agnostics. What makes you think that this evangelical spirit which so many are buying in to (literally, see Sam Harris' and Dawkins' book sales) wont' become an anti-faith movement?
I think I need to pull a liberal "the sky is falling, it's time to panic" move right about now ;).
BTW, one other thing. I admit falling into dogmatic, namecalling attacks. I am trying here to pull back to logical arugments.
When I used to run the "Ideological Lunch Club", I quickly realized that one thing we needed to do to avoid heated conversations that got us nowhere was to implement a "reflective listening rule." This meant that you could NOT respond to a person until you had first restated their argument, and they had agreed that your summary was what they MEANT (not just what they said or what you heard).
I will try to practice that here, and that is what i have done above, briefly – tried to restate your argument against my assertions and historical evidences that atheism leads to atrocities. I hope others will do it, but of course, I guess I need to follow my own advice first. So there you go.
I suggest you read this thread. Seriously.
Well, I wish you would be patient enough to re-summarize quickly your answer rather than making me read through pages of comments. The only answers I find to my assertions above are short and inadequate. For example:
I have gone to great lengths to explain the logical and causal relationship here. The answer? A statement of faith with no explanation. And when I reiterate my logic, I don't get responses to my logic, but instead, ad hominem attacks like
And regarding atheism's lack of antagonism to religion, I think my assertion applies:
So I ask again, did I properly restate your case against the link between atheism and atrocity? And if so, can you answer my follow-up questions?
Cineaste, so you don't believe the Bible because one translation uses the word unicorns in it? Yep, that's a pretty low bar for belief you have there.
I hate to keep rehashing this, but you insist that it is important, so here we go. First of all, English has changed since 1611 and the ancient Hebrew to English is another task in itself. Second, most (except fundamentalist) acknowledge KJV is poor rendering, as translations goes, especially when considering changes in word usage. Third, all of the verses are all poetic. Should we discount every piece of literature if they use the word "unicorn?" Should we count as false any historical record that speaks poetically of a mythical creature?
I don't know Hebrew so I have no idea what the word used in that sentence means, but I tend to doubt it means the mythical creature of a unicorn and again even if it does the verses are in poetic form.
As to comparing my belief with the moon and cheese, again your circular reasoning does no one any good. It serves only to frustrate you and those you are discussing matters with. Trust me, I find your views just as illogical and, dare I say, absurd, as you find mine, but what good does it do either of us to simply talk of things in circles, comparing the other's thoughts to the most absurd idea we can think of.
You may not care, but you will never convince anyone of what you believe to be the truth, if you insist on denegrating them or their ideas and using circular reasoning.
So I ask again, did I properly restate your case against the link between atheism and atrocity?
No.
For example, "atheist states" is a straw-man. Communist State? Fascist State? Dictatorship? Yes. Why you ask? Read the previous thread where this was addressed. I have already responded to all this a few days ago. So did NO'K. If all that has slipped your mind already why should I bother repeating myself? You are wasting my time by asking me to repeat things you don't listen to or accept anyway. I've already reread the entire thread while you complained. Put forth some effort if you're really serious about this so that we don't endlessly rehash the same thing over and over and over again. I promise you, the answers for your "follow-ups" are contained in that thread already, you just have to recognize them.
My comments from an earlier thread…
"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."
Later I saw my sentiments echoed here…
Wake up religious fundamentalists! Enough with the rationalizations already. There is no such thing as witches, or unicorns, or demons, or leprechauns, or angels, or giants, or Santa, or God.
Cineaste, the argument from Harris and Dawkins is why you will fail to convince the majority of people. Most people can see the differences between a faithful Christian and an Islamic terrorists. Most rational people reject silly notions to equate the two.
Cineaste, the argument from Harris and Dawkins is why you will fail to convince the majority of people.
I've convinced a lot of people Aaron. They were not "dyed in the wool faith heads (Dawkins)" to begin with though.
"Faithful Muslim Fundamentalists and Faithful Christian Fundamentalists are 2 faces of the same religious coin. The metal between both is an alloy of dogma, indoctrination and delusion." – Cineaste
That came out really well so quote me if you repeat it LOL.
Doesn't "unicorn" in fact mean any animal that has only one horn? If we are thinking of oxen, as other translations say, the typical way of controlling the direction of an ox is with a harness type device attached to it's horns. An animal with only one horn would be useless as a beast of burden because you would have no way to control it. I guess you could turn it easily in one direction.
dare I say, absurd,
Please dare, yes, dare. >:D
"Faithful Muslim Fundamentalists and Faithful Christian Fundamentalists are 2 faces of the same religious coin. The metal between both is an alloy of dogma, indoctrination and delusion."
Faithful Muslim Fundamentalists and Faithful Atheist/Secularist Fundamentalists are 2 faces of the same ideological coin – one demands obedience to God, to the threat of death, the other, denial of God, to the threat of ridicule, insult, and death if you let them run the country.
I contend that despite the nice atheists out there, Marxists, Stalinists, and other atheist statists DO represent the de rigeur of atheist statesmanship, if not the only historical example we have. You have to be blind to miss the seething hatred for faith beneath the "gentle and reasonable" claims of Dawkins. God help us if his ilk gain power in government.
Read the previous thread where this was addressed. I have already responded to all this a few days ago.
I read the thread. It did not answer my questions sufficiently, nor my counter points. I understand if you are unable or unwilling to summarize your point.
Doesn't "unicorn" in fact mean any animal that has only one horn?
Yes, it does. Don't ask me how they got Ox from "one horned" animal. From the passages above, the magical horse with a horn sticking out of its forehead fits better contextually than mundane old oxen (basically cows) anyway. A unicorn horn is much more glorious than ox horns.
Here Seeker…
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. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. 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. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
– Sam Harris
And I answered this. But to summarize ;),
1. even if there were other factors in these regimes, that does not prove that atheism did NOT lead to the abuses, or contribute. It most certainly DID contribute to their persecution of religion, even if "pure" atheism doesn't clearly teach such.
Further, he gives no credible reason why, if given "ultimate power," the atheist ideology would NOT degrade into the same horrors, given the agreed upon adage "ultimate power corrupts ultimately." I ask for the third time, what ethic or principle would stop atheism from persecuting religion?
2. The quote about being reasonable is a non-sequitur because (a) relying on reason alone is not synonymous with being reasonable – in fact, I would argue that by eliminating all other means of knowing, or epistemological methods, it is being unnecessarily narrow and limiting. And (b) he is pitting reason as the antithesis of faith, which is the atheist's charicature of faith, which ignores the more well developed ideas that show how faith and reason interact, and have throughout modern science history.
they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok.
While I agree that more than just atheism is involved here, atheism is not absolved of its role. That "political dogma" was in large part the implementation of the atheist utopia – a world without religion.
Sure, it also involved a whole central governmental system that perhaps not all atheists adhere to (for all I know, many atheists may be libertarian), but the point is, atheism wasn't some foreign concept to these regimes, it was one of their founding articles.
1. even if there were other factors in these regimes, that does not prove that atheism did NOT lead to the abuses, or contribute.
You're not making any argument here. There is no proof that unicorns didn't lead to abuses or contribute either. Where is your evidence that simply lacking a God belief kills millions?
I ask for the third time, what ethic or principle would stop atheism from persecuting religion?
Love & Good Will, Reason, Humanism, Compassion & Empathy, Personal Autonomy, A sense of Justice & Mercy, Empathy, Altruism… You really see only the worst in people don't you? Your question is stupid x 3.
2. The quote about being reasonable is a non-sequitur (a) relying on reason alone is not synonymous with being reasonable (b) he is pitting reason as the antithesis of faith
(a) For example? Names?
(b) Well, Sam Harris is right to do so…
…atheism is not absolved of its role.
What role? You haven't specified.
…implementation of the atheist utopia – a world without religion.
You mean Stalin's utopia? A world without religion is certainly not my idea of utopia.
Since I have been away from the computer today I'll simply comment on seeker's last response:
"When and if you meet God (if I am right), you can tell him that he failed to provide proof."
Yes, indeed, there it is, the final answer Christians have to those of us who insist on questioning your dogmas: the Threat. If we don't just lobomotimize ourselves and "believe" we will be spanked by the invisible babysitter. Allow me to express my contempt for this here and how. The more I read your argument, the more I am convinced that you are the apologists for lies and cruelty. What other name can we give your religion except Evil?