Here’s some recent stuff:
- Why atheism is politically unpopular in the US (Economist) – “One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. ‘Atheist’ has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. ‘Godless’ is worse, its derogatory attachment to ‘communist’ may never be broken. ‘Humanist’ sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves ‘Brights’ for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And ‘secular’ isn’t quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist. But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights.”
- Why the Flying Spaghetti monster is a poor analogy (ReasonableFaith) – “The real lesson to be learned from the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.”
- Dawkins a ‘Cultural Christian’? (BBC) – “This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.”So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.”
- Christianity and Violence (About.com) – Here’s a supposedly ‘good’ list of Christian atrocities across the ages. Of course, many of these can be easily refuted, but I thought you might like to see them (For refutations, see Atheist Atrocities, The Real History of the Crusades, Modern Myths About Christianity – Witch Hunts)
1)Duh- the same reason abolitionists and civil rights people were unpopular- they tell people something they don't want to hear.
2)Courtiers responce.
3)I think he means he celebrates Christmas and likes cathedrals.
4)Fallacy of misunderstood definition for the first part. Atheism is a lack of belief. This can best be seen in the fact that communist had similar social beliefs with religious conservatives- they hated homosexuality, banned all other religions, required adherance to the creed, insisted they could improve people and (insome cases) were rabidly prolife.
As for a true history of the Crusades… Muslim expansion peaked in 750. The Crusades were in 1090. So that would be a blatant lie on your part. The fact of the matter is that the first crusade occured because the Byzantine Emperor wanted help against the Sejuk Turks- and the pope wanted an external enemy for the nobles to fight.
The next two were to protect what they had conquered, while all the ones after where your classic "loot, pillage, rape, kill" cases.
As for witch hunts… well tell that to the Nigerians. They are currently killing kids as witches. And, yes- they are Christians.
1)Duh- the same reason abolitionists and civil rights people were unpopular- they tell people something they don't want to hear.
I think you missed the point of the article. Even if what you say is true, so are the claims of the article – and you prove the point – atheists are pretentious and obnoxious, in general ;)
3)I think he means he celebrates Christmas and likes cathedrals.
OK. It's still funny that mr. anti-christ likes some of the xian culture.
Regarding the Crusades, I still think you can't really pin that on xianity, but on political entities. And I do think that so-called "Christian" nations had the responsibility and right to take back the lands that were under Muslim oppression.
I will research your claims about the timing of the Crusades, but for the moment, I stand by the claim that most claims of 'violent' xianity are really mistakenly attributed to xianity, and are not endemic to its teachings, but to human fallenness (sin, which you and I both are guilty of ;).
No, no, no- I AM obnoxious and arrogant. Lets learn about stereotyping shall we?
He isn't the anti Christ. And he likes art and holidays. Or are you telling me that if you see the Festival of Lights you wouldn't enjoy it? All those millions of candles floating down the river… and it isn't even your religion. It would be like that for them.
Me.. resist.. urge.. to… Screw it- "We have come to liberate these lands from Capitalist oppression you Yankee dogs!"
Seriously- one theocracy for another is NOT an improvement. Especially if the transition involved killing everyone (something the Crusaders did repeatedly). Islam was in its liberal stage do to the strain of all the new converts- they didn't think butchering women and children was right. The Crusaders didn't have such scruples. Acre and Jerusalem anyone?
Um… religion IS tied with politics. You can't separate the two. If you believe that the holy land is sacred, than your POLITICAL aim will be to take it.
Funny- the Marxists said the same thing about communism. Course both of you are wrong- violence has dropped in the last millennium- it isn't endemic to humans. Only the potential for violence is. Which is what parenting is all about.
Course, three out of four people would torture puppies if a person in a lab coat asked them nicely (see cracked.com).
Lets learn about stereotyping shall we?
And what shall we learn? Here's what I've learned – stereotypes are not bad, it's just the ABUSE of stereotypes that is bad ;)
He isn't the anti Christ.
No, I didn't say he was THE anti-Christ, I said he was anti-Christ, i.e. against Christ. He doesn't just hate religion, he hates what Christ taught – like eternal damnation for those who reject Him. I mean, we all know that either Obama or Gore are THE antichrist ;)
Seriously- one theocracy for another is NOT an improvement.
Agreed, but who is pushing for theocracy? I have addressed the bogus and sometimes anti-intellectual, dumbed-down "theocracy" claims of secularists in such posts as
Islam leads to a Misogynist, Homophobic Theocracy
Theocrats and Theophobes
Is applying a biblical worldview to public policy theocratic?
Is the Christian Right Turning the US Into a THEOCRACY?
Especially if the transition involved killing everyone (something the Crusaders did repeatedly).
I again insist that the Crusades were a political war (and the Catholic church, unforutately, was very politically powerful and corrupt), and an abuse of the teachings of the NT, not a fulfillment.
Want to see what *real* Islam looks like? Look at Mohammed – polygamist, jihadist, racist, pedophile. What to see what *real* Christianity looks like? Look at Christ and his Apostles.
Um… religion IS tied with politics. You can't separate the two. If you believe that the holy land is sacred, than your POLITICAL aim will be to take it.
When it comes to Israel, I agree. But there is a healthy way to integrate politics and faith, and unhealthy ways. In fact, I have argued that the Bible discusses a type of separation of these powers, though not the extreme separation that secularists want.
Separation of Church and State, but not God and State
Uneasy Neighbors – Church and State
Course both of you are wrong- violence has dropped in the last millennium- it isn't endemic to humans. Only the potential for violence is.
Are you kidding? How are you measuring, and what? But to some extent, I agree with you – the potential is there – but we disagree on how you throttle or manage that. We might both agree that education in democratic ideals, humanist ethics, and correct epistemelogic methods (e.g. scientific method) help, but I would add that without changing the spirit of man (see The Tripartite Makeup of Man), such efforts fall woefully short – some of the most educated people can be the most wicked.
Course, three out of four people would torture puppies if a person in a lab coat asked them nicely
Yes, humans are scary.
Thanks for posting, I enjoyed this last comment (and responding to it).
Wow… you actually know what a stereotype is. I am impressed- most people don't. Unfortunately for you, "abusing it" would probably mean using it in one form or another.
Again you are wrong. Dawkins has declared "atheists for Jesus".
…
Yes it is ironic and bloody funny. Don't ask me about it- I find it odd.
Lets look at the theocracies throughout history, shall we? interestingly enough they very… inside the same religion! Islam had a liberal period where learning and democratic social structures where embraced. Christianity had a time when people could convert to Judaism, Homosexuality was as bad as breaking a window (okay- but requires you feel bad). Heck- there was even a theocracy that taught that you didn't need to follow the bible to be good- the world was created by Satan. All you had to do was join the pure at the end of your life and you could enter heaven.
The only comminality is that ALL theocracies suppressed dissent agains their foundation, ALL were anti-science and NONE of them were compatible with liberal values. By liberal values I mean the old version (free speech, free market) and the newer ones (emancipation, NO stonings!).
Actually Muhammed is more Christ-like than Christ in his early years. Charity, infanticide is bad, spreading the word… then people started to make fun of him. And didn't listen to him. Said he was a false prophet. And then he got an army…
Needless to say power corrupts. Especially when you write in exceptions for yourself to the rules. Course it is unfair to compare Jesus- hippies are as upstanding as he was. You want to see what happens when it first gains power (sort of how we judge communism- not by Marx, but Sov Union). Oh, it got bloody.
They can't be seperated because morality is tied up with politics… and for the religious religion is tied with morality.
Murders per thousand people. Also rapes and other violent crimes. Japan and Sweden are good examples of nice socieites.
You think THAT was the scary part?
HAAHHAHHAHAHHAHHA…
Let me put it this way- ever read sci fi? Now, they can do torture, they can do genocide, they can do Really Messed Up Stuff (bloody Kzin- I can't get that image out of my head!), but what takes the cake?
Relativistic weapons. You can never see them coming, they go so fast. Why take the chance? Why not hit them before they get you? Or use beserkers… or Von Newman machines… or planet killers…
The intrinsic paranoia behind those is creepy as hell… and despite some flaws with the idea it would explain why we don't see any aliens in the vicinity.
Wow… you actually know what a stereotype is. I am impressed- most people don't.
Don't jump the gun, I may not ;). Seriously though, I have long disliked the blanket rejection of stereotypes, and I do think that there is a legitimate use of stereotypes. I should blog on it, since the subject comes up frequently.
Dawkins has declared "atheists for Jesus".
Huh? Please provide reference, that would be interesting to see and understand.
Islam had a liberal period where learning and democratic social structures where embraced.
I have heard of this, but have not researched it myself. I suspect, however, that what I have heard has been either downplayed by Christianists, or up-played (exaggerated) by Muslim apololists and liberal historians who have a grudge against Christianity. I'll have to try to find some reliable sources on this. I do suspect that many of the supposed scientific and mathematical discoveries attributed to Islam were more likely attributable to the cultures and nations they conquered than to Muslims themselves.
The only comminality is that ALL theocracies suppressed dissent agains their foundation, ALL were anti-science and NONE of them were compatible with liberal values.
I agree that, in general, theocracies are bad, save perhaps Israel, which is special among nations ;). My argument is that not all influence of religious and moral precepts upon government is theocratic.
Regarding theocracies and fundamentalists hindering science (and often the arts), I entirely agree, and have described this imbalance in a post you may enjoy, Is Man Basically Good or Evil?
They can't be seperated because morality is tied up with politics… and for the religious religion is tied with morality.
Nicely said, we agree. Do we have a disagreement?
Stereotypes are an intellectual cheat sheet. Given that we aren't dealing with tribes of fifty people (who would be uniform) but groups numbering in the million and you can see why they don't work.
For "atheists for Jesus" type it in on google. I'll have to find the Dawkin's link elsewhere- although there is a good bet it is on his website.
Islam's liberal period was after the death of Muhhamed until the sacking of the caliph by Muslims. About 590-1300. It was characterized by a resumption of the sciences, advances in mathematics, Massive strides forward in medicine (which was NOT based on the Greeks), tolerance towards varying groups, sponsorship of the arts, etc.
During this time many of the classics were preserved and translated into Arabic, the idea of evolution was proposed again, paper was introduced into the middle east and the Silk Road was able to operate safely (at least for the first part).
The influence of religion on government is the same as any other pressure group… when religion is used to run the government you have issues. Israel is a good example- they have massive problems based on this (they will soon be out numbered by "infidels", they don't levee in mass for religious reasons, etc…). A better example would be Reagan. You DON'T want a president who believes the end is near and it will be GLORIOUS!
Morality isn't dependent on religion unless you make it so. Which believers have done. Honestly the could just as easily tied morality to any other field- music for starters would be better.
I don't believe people are inherently evil… only innately dangerous. Evil can't really exist as an abstract concept, while good can- evil feeds upon and destroys itself (there is something about selfishness and a love of violence that makes it impossible for people like that to work in large groups). Of course, the answer is longer, but you get the idea.
Stereotypes are an intellectual cheat sheet.
I think you underestimate the value and use of stereotypes. They are useful generalizations that can serve you well until you get better or more information.
The influence of religion on government is the same as any other pressure group… when religion is used to run the government you have issues.
I think you are conflating the influence of religious values with religious power structures. Did you read Separation of Church and State, but not God and State? As you rightly said, not only is separation of religion/morality/state not possible, it is possible for it to be governed correctly, rather than just opting for the two extremes of secularism or theocracy, imho.
Morality isn't dependent on religion unless you make it so. Which believers have done.
Well, more specifically, morality is not a useful concept unless you have some method for identifying *objective* moral principles. Religionists rightly argue that morality is not justified by consensus, but must be received from some authority, be it science or God. And good luck using science to determine morality.
Second, there is a difference between morality and ethics. As I have said, while my morality and ethics may be informed by my faith, But in public policy discourse, we should appeal to common ethics, not religious authority, and reason our way to legislation.
however, I do think it is proper to reference God, and things like divine judgment, when arguing our case, as both Lincoln and Dr. King did – but that is not an appeal to religious authority, as much as it is an appeal to the risks of making wrong decisions.
I don't believe people are inherently evil… only innately dangerous.
That's fine, substitute 'innately dangerous' into my essay on 'Is man basically good or evil.' I think the principles still apply, that we must appeal to man's 'good' or 'divine' potential, while acknowledging that it is flawed, in which case we need to institute checks and balances.
i think this approach is biblical, as I described in that article.