There Is No God (And You Know It)

[Beetwasher]

This is an article on Huffingtonpost.com (precise link below). NOT MY TITLE.

This is an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto, to be published at www.truthdig.com in December.

--snip--

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. God is Santa Claus for adults.

[newsguyatl]

3. lmao

:rofl:

[arwalden]

332. I've Always Felt This Way... It Makes Perfect Sense.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

2. God is responsible for this thread.

There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this.

[BurtWorm]

6. Are you saying this thread is intelligently designed?

Seems a little random to me. ;)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

218. It will evolve into a love brouhaha.

Oh, look, it already has!
Love thy neighbor, baby.

[txaslftist]

4. Then what's the point of anything?n/t

[Beetwasher]

5. Whatever You Make It

What's god's point? You think you know? Why would that make a difference? If you don't know god's point, or what he wants from you, you might as well make your own up anyway, so what's the point of god?

[Az]

7. The point is what you make of it

It may be true that there is no point to life. But you may find someething interesting while living, and perhaps that is enough.

[unpossibles]

14. the point is everything

does there have to be a God or a Point to everything?

Can we not just be good people and try to be good to each other and enjoy what we know we do have without a God?

Even if there is a God, people who believe only behave because they want to get into Heaven; therefore there is still no altruism and no point.

Anyone can believe what they want to help them get through the day. But that does not mean there has to be a God for it to make sense or to give it intrinsic value.

Just my $.02

[HereSince1628]

28. Well, I think the point is we need to rethink the "point" of things

so that the point of everything is not based on a false belief.

You can still define goodness without having a god decide what it is.

Think about it, maybe acquiring personal wealth is pointless since we will lose it at death. Maybe the point of acquiring wealth is to share it or at least its value.

Maybe acquiring personal knowledge is to pass it along to the living.

Maybe the point of life in one generation is to pass it along to the next.

[porphyrian]

8. Agnostic humanism is more friendly.

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a God, we should be good to each other during life.

[DanCa]

9. Actually W's god sicken's me

The liberal christians on this page rock. And I do respect your view point too. Have a nice day.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Ditto. However I feel that _militant_ athiests who want to rip my God away

from me are cut from the same cloth as the fundies who want to shove their God down my throat. Live and let live already, people.

Fortunately most of the athiests I know are more open-minded than the militant ones. I often find I have more in common with open-minded atheists and agnostics than I do with fundagelicals.

[DanCa]

25. Double ditto or is that ditto squarred (nt)

[Beetwasher]

35. Heh? Really? Militant Atheists Want to "Rip" Your God Away?

Really? Where? How? When? I'd be intrested in seeing some of these people and how they are trying to do that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

119. I have not met any militant atheists

personally but they sure existed in the Soviet Union and Mao's China.

[trotsky]

198. Moreso,

how WOULD an atheist "rip" your god away? Can we get inside your head and remove your concept of god? Personally I don't see how anyone could FORCE someone to believe or not to believe something. Your mind is ultimately your own.

[NervousRex]

36. Why worship

a God who can be ripped away from you by a few posts on message board thread? Sheesh that's a wimpy God....and a weak faith.

[DanCa]

37. delete

[Finder]

38. Militant atheism is in the eye of the beholder...

and I have found that mostly it is the religous that label them that way.

[Zynx]

39. The militant atheists are no more rational than fundies.

They have rigid views of the world that cannot be altered by facts.

[Beetwasher]

42. Really? Who Are These Militant Atheists

How do they rip your god away, and what facts do they deny?

[shrike]

90. Well, I met a few last week

While they're not going to rip my god away anytime soon, talking with them was a little like dealing with my fundie relatives -- they are right, you are wrong, and by God (if you excuse the expression), one of these days you'll see things their way.

That said, most non-religious are not that way at all. I know more than a few of them. Although I've also met an atheist who was a neo-con before neo-con was cool. I'm beginning to think this is a character trait; has nothing to do with a belief system or a lack of it. People who are rigid will be rigid and there's not a whole lot you and I can do about it.

[glitch]

134. You are describing black or white thinkers. They can only see two sides

so when the first side they choose fails them there is only one other option.

This is why so many far left flip to far right and vice versa. Or "militant" atheist flip to fundamentalist and vice versa.

It's also why anger (or scorn) is the their response to being questioned.

IMO :)

[shrike]

215. Unfortunately, people like this lend their black-and-white thinking

to other issues besides religion. I could see it at the gathering I attended -- it was supposed to be a political gathering, but church and state issues came up, as did other topics. The people who were strident on one topic were strident on everything. Pity, since one would hope a progressive, at least, would be open to new ideas -- religion is one thing, but there are plenty of new things to learn in this world.

[glitch]

229. I think it's their mindset, or the way their minds work, so that is the

way they approach every topic. I don't blame them, I think it is something they can't help. Or maybe the ones who can help themselves learn their way out of it, because two dimensions is really not a happy place to live, and the ones who can't never do and become angry at their state.
I don't think any ideology is immune from this type of participant, but the rigid ideologies are more attractive to the mindset.
Next time you talk to these strident progressives you should ask them what does being progressive mean to them. In a nice way of course. Perhaps they are progressive for a very singular reason and don't really embrace the overall progressive idealogy.
We are the big tent, after all.
At any rate, it could be interesting to hear their answer!

[Inland]

170. When I get into these types of threads and

remark that I am seeing two sides of the same coin, some get angry. But it's true. A perusal of the threads sees the same longwinded hairsplitting, dogmatic assertions, self congratulation, and reinforcement of clubby chumminess among some atheists as one sees among some christians.

Rigid is rigid, intolerant is intolerant.

[Inland]

161. Heck, I would list the original poster.

After all, the technique he uses is simply dishonest: he declares that the prevailing concept of God cannot be reconciled with disaster, but without bothering to acknowledge on any of the attempts fo theologians through the ages to do just that.

He has taken it upon himself to argue both sides and then intentionally fucked up the argument for religion in order to more easily declare his own set of predetermined beliefs to be correct.

Looks like dogma and bad argument can support more than just religious belief. Just saying.

[Zhade]

232. It's not the OP's writing.

You should probably be aware of that fact before you rip him for something he didn't write.

[Inland]

292. Thanks, but I'm pretty aware.

Although I could see how some are confused, I wasn't.

[Zhade]

294. Self-delete

Confusion has been resolved below.

[Beetwasher]

244. Uhh, I Didn't Write That Article

Did you even read the OP? :eyes:

[Inland]

291. Which is why I said original poster, not "you", and not "OP".

And as made clear by my critique, I read it pretty closely.

[Zhade]

295. Since OP is short for "original poster" on DU and vice versa...

...that must be where the confusion came in.

[Inland]

297. Perhaps, but as I was replying

to the actual DU poster, it was clear enough that I was referring to the blog poster that he was copying.

And I'll say no more than that.

[Zhade]

299. You don't have to, you've explained it.

It read funny, but I'm satisfied with your answer.

[Zhade]

231. You had me at "rigid", lost me at "facts".

I agree that there are atheists who (IMHO, wrongly) conclude that it has been proven that there are definitely no gods, versus those who just don't believe in unproven myths.

But I'm very curious about these "facts" you refer to. What might those be?

"God's existence" isn't a fact, so I know you can't be talking about that. So what do you mean?

[Book Lover]

54. Can you give us a few examples? (nm)

[Josephine]

85. What's a militant atheist?

Isn't that a little like being a militantly celebate?

[CBGLuthier]

10. number one reason I don't call myself an atheist

Because so many of them are frothing at the mouth idiots who can't understand the difference between religious creeds and the concept of god.

And so many of them are in actuality antitheists. They can't be satisfied that they are right until everyone else agrees with them.

Talk about ego!

They are more obsessed with god than most of those who believe.
So, to quote some other du'ers when they see something they do not care for;

booooooriiiing

But you antitheists go ahead and indulge yourselves in your self congratulatory, circle-jerk thread.

[Beetwasher]

18. Heh? Then Why Reply?

Umm, atheists are not obsessed w/ god, however, we do get angry when we are FORCED to have to deal w/ your imaginary friend and discriminated against because we don't believe in it. That's not obsession, that's righteous indignation.

[Arugula Latte]

21. Right, Beetwasher.

I was told by my neighbor (an otherwise seemingly normal human) that I HAD to believe in something (meaning god or dogma).

Non-atheists can't understand what it's like to live in a world where the majority holds a belief that to us is akin believing in a tooth fairy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

220. So you posted this thread because someone forced you to deal with God?

This is the above mentioned militant athiesm at it's "finest" - ridiculing others' beliefs ("your imaginary friend") and implying that anyone who believes in a big imaginary buddy in the sky is stupid. If you don't think there are militant athiests on DU who say those things, read any religion war thread on DU. Read this thread. Read your own damn posts.

Who on DU is FORCING God on you? Why do you need to be "righteously indignant" because some people believe in God? You know, a common trait of fundamentalism is the constant feeling of persecution. Fundamentalist Chrisitans are constantly screeching about how persecuted they are in this debauched liberal society. Militant athiests constantly complain about how this extremist Christian society is persecuting them and forcing the Bible down their throat, threatening to burn them at the stake. Do you REALLY see no difference between these two bogus claims of persecution? Can you honestly not look in the mirror and not admit that you are being just as self-righteous and in-your-face as fundamentalist Christians?

Intolerance is intolerance, I don't give a damn who's being intolerant of what.

[Zhade]

235. That is a false comparison.

Unlike atheists, believers are not prevented from running for office in some states (to cite one example).

Are atheists being burned at the stake? Not anymore, at least not in this country. Does persecution happen? Yep. Been a victim myself.

I do understand that "your imaginary friend" offends believers. It doesn't change the fact that atheists (generally) do see it as such. If one were to call it by a nicer name, would that really erase the knowledge that we don't think believers' unproven myths are true?

How would you have atheists refer to believers' beliefs so as to not offend but also not lie about how we view the belief itself?

[Beetwasher]

256. Oh Please! What a Load!

I'm intolerant because I think god is an imaginary construct?? Give me a break. That's not saying I think you have no right to believe or should be forced NOT to or that you should shut up. THAT would be intolerant. Speak out all you want, say what you want, but the line is drawn when you try to force it on me. I know of not a single atheist who trys to force their atheism on others.

The mere fact that you put atheists who most assuredly ARE discriminated against in this country on the same level as evangelicals shows that you have no concept of reasonable discussion. One group is demonstrably the victim of discrimination, the other group runs the country and only cries "discrimination!" when others try to stop them from force feeding their beliefs on the rest of us.

[WildEyedLiberal]

286. Your last paragraph is hyperbole

Persecution of atheism is about as imaginary as persecution of Christians. I know plenty of atheists, and they've never been denied any rights because of their personal beliefs. Are atheists routinely fired from jobs, or not hired? Are they prevented from being in public places by Jim Crow laws? No. How are atheists demonstrably persecuted in this country? And having some wacko Christians try to shove God down your throat doesn't count as persecution, sorry - that's just a group of people being assholes. Persecution means a systemic denial of rights. And that does NOT happen to atheists in this country.

I know plenty of atheists. Most are quite tolerant of other people's belief systems. A few others, however, are assholes, and attempt to start a debate about religion almost every fucking time I see them, in a feeble attempt to convince me why God doesn't exist. How is that any different from Christian proselytizing?

[Zhade]

287. It's already been explained in this forum several times.

Like, for example, being banned from running for any office in several states.

That you don't see it, or refuse to, does not make it hyperbole.

[Beetwasher]

315. Did I Say Persecuted? No, I Said Discriminated, And It's NOT Hyperbole

Atheists are discriminated against, whether you want to believe it or not. It's only Xtian fundy's who claim to be persecuted when they are denied the ability to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats.

I never said persecuted.

[Dorian Gray]

331. Condescension...

I don't mind having this conversation, but "your imaginary friend" is such a thing that one would say to a child. You are dealing with adults and it would be nice if you treated us like adults in this topic.

As for the Athiest/Religious debates, I don't try to FORCE my God down anybody's throats, and I don't personally know any militant athiests who look down on me for being a religious Catholic. I find that I don't speak about religion all the time in my normal, every day life. When the subject DOES come up, I find that most people I know are very respectful and inquisitive about varying beliefs.

I am personally tired of BOTH Christians and Athiests claiming persecution (or even FORCED dealings) with the other. If by claiming that, you mean reading these threads where arrogance on all sides tends to fall into place, well, that's easily remediable. In the real world, I think that we are quite lucky to be where we are. If we want to learn about true persecution, we should read about Europe in the Middle Ages, the Salem Witch Trials, Russia during the Soviet/Stalin era or Saudi Arabia today.

(Sorry about my little rant. I just HAD to get this off my chest.)

[Finder]

23. Apparently there is more than one reason...

you don't call yourself an atheist.

[dretceterini]

47. anti-theist and athiest are not the same thing

an anti-thiest sees what most call God as the sum total of all existance, rather than some force outside of existance which manifested it. Sort of a panentheistic, zen view of the world, if you will.

An athiest simply does not believe in a God of any kind...

[RoBear]

55. I meet with an Atheist MeetUp once a month,

and let me assure you:

1. None of them are frothing at the mouth.

2. There are no idiots in the group; most are college-educated and beyond, and no they are NOT "educated beyond their intelligence."

3. We understand quite well the difference between religions and gods. Most of our discussion is aimed at fundamentalists and the current fairy-tale-driven person in the white house.

4. Virtually no one in our group wants to convert the world to atheism. In fact one member not longer attends since the group refused to acquiesce to his demands that we "have an agenda and goals."

5. Your post, like fundamentalists, reveals more ego than any of the people in our group.

7. We are not obsessed with god; see comment #3 above.

8. Most of the atheists I know don't have a self-congratulatory attitude, but virtually every "religious" person I've met has "I'm saved and you're not" air about them.

9. Most religionists I've met are angry and unhappy. That's why I no longer believe. It's not from a sense of superiority, simply that I don't want to be associated with anger and unhappiness.

[DanCa]

71. Dude your so cool.

Your my pal you know that :hug: I know how you feel. Thats why I call myself a Jesusian. Looks like I found my counterpart.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

Religionists almost always believe the religion of their birth culture.

[Arugula Latte]

16. I know. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

;)

It's amazing how Christians give birth to Christians and they all KNOW they've got the true belief. Muslims give birth to Muslims who think the same thing.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. I was raised atheist, and converted to Christianity.

Rare, but it does happen.

[Zynx]

22. My mother was raised atheist in a Jewish neighborhood and became

Catholic. No one forced her to. No one drummed religion into her head from the time she was young.

[Arugula Latte]

11. I think it's kinda sad that people

that there's no meaning to life without a diety.

That's why they convince themselves of all sorts of silly notions the world over.

We enjoy our time on Earth here and now, and do our best.

I say "Amen" ;-) to this article.

We need more of this circulated broadly.

[spunky]

185. I'm an atheist, and I'd agree that life has no meaning without a deity

as Sartre said, "Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal."

If there's no deity and no reward at the end of your life, then life becomes nothing more than a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate the species. And perpetuation of the species can hardly be called meaningful.



". . .the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied."

[jackthesprat]

191. Maybe those two options are false; the logic is flawed.

Isn't the world more complex than what fundamentalist Christians and Darwinians think?

[spunky]

195. I don't know THE answer, but the answer for me is no.

You live, you struggle, you die, you rot. I think the perceived complexities in the world are really just outgrowths of our cultural constructs, and not any sort of biological/natural origin.

I don't think the world looks too complex to an ant or a bird. The only difference between us and them is we think that our individual lives are important. As a friend of mine says, "We're just hairless apes with delusions of granduer."

But I speak only for myself in that opinion.

[jackthesprat]

207. What I meant.....

the logic is dualistic: one or the other. Why up high or just down below; it's kind of bi-polar(manic-depressive.)
By complex I don't refer to a magical deity, just the human mind engaged with the world.

[spunky]

221. Not sure if I'm properly following your thought here, but

each human mind engages with the world differently. If your saying meaning lies in how we see and interact with the world, then I'd say I call that purpose not meaning.

Though I don't see meaning in life I do believe we all have the option of giving our lives purpose. When I said, you live, you stuggle, you die, you rot, I didn't mean to imply that the "struggle" -- what we do in life-- is pointless, only that it is devoid of meaning. You can devote your life to easing the suffering of others, and that certainly isn't pointless, anyone whose suffering you ease would testify to that. But I do think its meaningless.

If you believe in a deity than the meaning of life is the glorification of him/her/it. If you don't believe in a deity, then any meaning ascribed to life is totally individual, and if meaning isn't shared, how can it mean anything?

Bah, I'm sleepy and rambling.

[jackthesprat]

222. I thinking you are describing "transcendence".

That meaning transcends history.

[Zhade]

241. But is it meaningless if you set an example to follow?

Was, say, MLK's life and dedication to equality ultimately meaningless?

[Az]

246. It is still a meaning we humans have invented

Its a laudible meaning. But it is not inherant to the universe.

[jackthesprat]

247. that is what transendence means.

[Zhade]

250. Of course. I agree.

We create the meaning. No god that I know of sets the meaning for us.

[spunky]

254. hmm, not sure if I have a good answer for that. . .

and perhaps "good" should be read as "fitting into my neatly outlined arguement" lol.

Obviously what MLK did was important and has had a tremendously profound and positive impact on the lives of countless people, and I am probably just splitting semantic hairs here, but I honestly can't call it meaningful, because I believe there has to be someone/someting to assign the meaning.

Let me see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense to anyone but me. I see meaning as requiring agreement. And MLK, while obviously the catalyst of actual observable change, is still really a symbol. And although as a symbol he marked a path that many have followed to the betterment of mankind, like all symbols, he "means" different things to different people, to the vast majority he is a positive symbol, but still to some he is a negative symbol. Thats why I have such trouble with the idea of "meaning" because nobody can agree on it.

So, I'll be stubborn and say MLK found a very worthy purpose for his life and in doing so created a path for many other people to give purpose to their own lives and the world is a better place for it.

Forgive me for playing word games as I most likely am. heh.

[Zhade]

261. "I believe there has to be someone/someting to assign the meaning."

Don't you and I assign meaning to his struggle by remembering and revering it?

That's exactly what I mean by "we make our own meaning".

:)

[spunky]

263. Fair point. So long as the meaning remains

a totally individual one, I don't object to it. I have a problem with Meaning, with a capital M.

:)

[Zhade]

269. I think we're on the same page.

The Big Meaning, if it existed, probably wouldn't even mean the same to everyone anyway, and thus would devolve into little-m meaning by default!

[Zhade]

238. I don't think I can agree with that sentiment.

I look at the amazing advances human civilization has made, and I don't see it as meaningless.

Often brutal and often beautiful, but never meaningless.

But of course, to each their own.

[spunky]

240. What does it mean then?

That sounds a bit glib, but I totally don't mean it that way. Its an honest and friendly question. :)

[Zhade]

243. See #241 just upthread.

NT!

[Az]

242. But we apply our own meaning

And that is the point. The question is do we come with a meaning or do we make our meaning? The former suggests that there is intent to our lives. The latter suggests that we are and meaning is derived from us.

[spunky]

255. That's EXACTLY where I have a problem with the idea of meaning

WE each make it individually. What I make it is not what you make it, so what is it?

That's why I prefer saying life has/we give life purpose rather than meaning.

Again, that may just seem like semantics to everyone else.

[Az]

257. Semantics are about conveying an accurate understanding

I don't think there is anything more important to conversing than getting semantics ironed out.

[jackthesprat]

259. Good point.

[smirkymonkey]

317. Was that end quote Sartre as well?

Kind of sums up my take on it.

[spunky]

325. lol, no, the endquote was Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :)

[Zynx]

12. In that second paragraph, there is one ENORMOUS flaw in logic.

"That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity."

Oh, of course, an atheist never killed ANYONE. I mean, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest of the Communist dictators(all atheists) never killed a single person. /sarcasm

Those 100+ million they killed(more than any number of religious wars put together) and the hundreds of millions more that suffered under their reigns. Even if you decide not to include Hitler because his atheistic tendancies are debatable since he made various conflicting statements, the numbers killed by atheists in the 20th century alone are staggering.

Also, in general, the author does not have a firm grasp of methods of persuasion. He simply boldly states his position and basically assumes it is correct and shoves it in the reader's face in an aggressive and abrasive manner. I'm sorry, but this is stereotypical angry atheist rant and it is wholely unconvincing. I've heard it DOZENS of times.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. They didn't kill them for the sake of atheism, but power and politics.

[Zynx]

32. The same can be said for many religious conflicts, no?

Also, the author basically says that if people became atheists, the human suffering he ascribes to religion would not occur. I've heard this argument before that the world would be less violent with atheists in control. However, in examples with atheist dictators who tried to create their utopias(largely an atheistic concept), those dictators brought death and suffering on levels not seen before in human history.

[Az]

44. Control?

I don't see that argument being made. I see a call to consider how dogmatic belief systems impact our world. Don't worry, there is no threat of atheists taking over the world.

[Zhade]

251. Utopia is an atheistic concept?

So Christians don't believe their heaven is a utopia?

And, again, the motivating factor of these dictators was not atheism. But then, you already know that.

[unpossibles]

24. anyone is capable of good or evil

regardless of belief. Actually, although probably personally an atheist, Hitler used the Christian God to get people to go along with his pogroms. Gott Mit uns.

Sounds familiar.

Personally I see myself as more agnostic in that I really do not know. I do know that I do not believe in the Christian God, per se, even if I find many of Christ's (to differentiate between "Christian") values to be fine and good for people.

[Az]

27. Clarification

Its true there have been murderous atheists in history. The critical difference is that it was not in the name of atheism that they killed.

Typically what you need in order to convince enough people to kill is some sort of doctrine that convinces them its the right thing to do. You have to convince the people that the doctrine is absolutely right and absolutely moral. This creates a Absolute Dogmatic Moral mindset.

Thus whether it was crusaders slaughtering Muslems in the name of god or Communists killing in the name of the state it was all because of a specific belief system.

No one has ever killed in the name of no god alone that I am aware of.

[Zynx]

34. The author basically claims that religion makes people violent.

I am simply stating that atheism does not make people peaceful.

[Zhade]

252. That's NOT what you claimed, but I am glad you have altered your claim.

And I would agree - atheism no more makes people peaceful than religion does.

Religion does, however, make people easier to persuade. After all, if one can sincerely believe in unproven myths, one can believe "Gott mit uns".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

154. But there have also been

millions of the poor, children, homeless, helped through the ages by the religious.

I know the arugments about the Crusades, Inquisition, bad Catholic schools, etc. and I don't deny them.

But just a reminder of how people of faith sometimes use that faith as an inspiration to reach out and help their fellow man. Just one simple example would be leper colonies run by nuns.

We must be careful not to over-generalize.

[Zhade]

253. Likewise, millions have been helped by atheists.

I agree with your last line, mostly.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

284. I would imagine that, indeed, there have

been many people helped by good hearted atheists.

However, religious groups have organized and cared to the poor, young, elderly, and imprisoned for centuries.

I'm not aware of organized groups of atheists. The poor people would have been burned at the stake anyway, so they weren't likely to work under a banner!

I once read that it has been estimated that more people were saved (eventually) by surgical techniques perfected in WWI and II than were killed. I would like to believe that. Likewise, I really hope the tally for people of faith it greater in the help rather than heinous column.

But I'm not the stats keeper so I'll never really know.



edited for spelling

[Zhade]

288. And unorganized atheists have done the same.

Why is it necessary to denigrate atheists' contributions to society over those same centuries in order to tally results in your non-heinous column?

THAT gets really old. Believers are absolutely not one bit more charitable or helpful than atheists, anymore than the reverse is true.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

296. You misunderstood me

as I was saying that atheists did not have the chance TO organize. Atheism was unacceptable for hundreds of years. And while I am not a student of theology or the history of religion I would assume that atheists are and have been fewer in number than people of faith.

I opened my response with "I would imagine that indeed, there have been many people helped by good hearted atheists."

When I stated that religious groups have organized and cared for the poor, I was certainly not denigrating atheist's contributions to society and I am unclear as to where you got that from my words. My point is that any groups that have the advantages of being able to organize, particularly over the centuries, are going to be more efficient because of money, land, resources, etc.

My imaginary tally with people of faith left atheists out all together. It contrasts the good done by religions over the evil, and questions the ratio. Religions are often blamed for many evils in the world; I am pointing out that there are good things done as well.

And if you would point to what in my response led you to believe that I maintain that believers are more charitable or helpful than atheists, it will help me write more effective posts in the future.

[Zhade]

300. I think I did misunderstand you.

You made a good point with regards to atheists' ability to organize. Even today, atheism is not that accepted - I should know, I've dealt with it in my own life.

I've heard so many believers here (yes, here!) try to "one-up" atheists in the Good Deeds category that I assumed too much from your post.

I apologize for being short with you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

302. That's okay

posts and email are rather ineffectual at times.

One reason I personally have no problem with atheists is because I don't think there are any. DON'T HIT ME. It isn't what you think.

I think everyone has a world view that involves mystery. We don't know all the answers. You don't have to believe in a cognitive deity to understand that when you die, because matter cannot be created or destroyed, you will live forever in another form. Some call it spirit and some call it quantum physics. Some call it mulch. And some call it God. And because as a species we like to talk, sing, dance, have sex, eat, drink, categorize, organize, etc., we ascribe all KINDS of characteristics to this entity.

I have a dear friend who is an atheist but she is also a scientist and I think that science is her faith. I know it is. She has faith in the universe, in the natural laws, and she looks on every animal, sunset, sunrise, hurricane, etc., with awe.

I think that atheists get a bad rap because our language is simply incomplete.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

43. Wrong!

Hitler was definitely NOT an atheist. He made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions in his speeches that he was acting from a religious imperative.

Before he became a party apparatchik, Stalin was in the seminary studying for the priesthood.

If I'm not mistaken, Pol Pot was a Buddhist and Mao was raised on Confucianism.

[Az]

53. You missed the point

Mao and Stalin may have been raised in particular religions but their political agenda was not driven by them. They had long abandoned them and turned to new ways of thinking.

The boogyman in this scenario is domgatic thinking. And there can be dogmatic systems that are atheistic as well. But the focus of them is not being atheists. Something else is placed in the position of central focus and aderation is demanded in the system.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

57. You Sure About That?

All those religious traditions are highly authoritarian in nature. You don't think that soil even partly gave root to the hate, the mass murder and the orthodoxy they preached?

[Az]

61. Read what I said

Both here and above. Yes there is great danger in dogmatic belief systems. Whether they are god centric or not. As Voltaire once said those that can make us believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities.

Not all dogmatic systems are destructive. But in order to convince a large number of people to commit atrocities something has to convince them it is the right thing to do.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

73. And most frequently, that system is religious in nature n/t

[Az]

81. With specific clarifications I agree

The clarifications being that not all religious beliefs lead to bloody warfare. But dogmatic belief is almost required to whip a population into a suitable frenzy to commit atrocities. All the while the adherants believing they are doing good works.

[Splatter Phoenix]

70. He's saying they weren't Atheists.

Not that their religion was what made them do what they did. Purely that they weren't Atheists.

[Az]

79. That is incorrect

Stalin was raised religious and even studied to be a member of the clergy. But he deconverted and declared himself an atheist.

The problem was not his atheism though. It was his adherance to a particular dogma with fanatical devotion. It just happend to not be theistic.

[Zynx]

94. His speeches were Christian because he was playing to the crowd.

His private conversations indicated everything other than him being a Christian. He said, "Nazism and Christianity cannot coexist.".

Stalin definately became atheist after his falling out with the clergy. He made almost total war on religion when he got into power. Interestingly, there are those on the DU who indicate they would do the same if they had the power to do so.

Eastern religions are not necessarily theistic. Pol Pot, from everything we can tell, definately did not believe in God or even Gods, and Mao may have been raised Confucian, but he definately implemented an atheistic national religious policy.

I think Az is right when he says the issue in all of these things is rigid dogma whether it is ideological or religious in nature. For instance, there has been no more singularly destructive force in the history of the world than nationalism.

[trotsky]

202. And the "rigid dogma" wasn't atheism.

It was communism under Stalin & Mao. And if you, like most Christians who don't want to admit Hitler believed in Christ too, are basing your beliefs on the biased "Table Talk" info, you should read up on that a bit more. Those snippets were compiled by one of Hitler's henchmen who was anti-church, not anti-Christ.

[shrike]

95. Actually, Hitler was a bit confused, IMO

He was raised Catholic, but I've read statements around the time of his death that sounded like they came from an atheist. Of course, the man may have been so crazy at the end he didn't know what he believed.

Nothing I've read about the horrific Mr. Pol Pot indicates he had any belief system whatsoever, but I may be wrong. It certainly didn't direct his desires to kill every human being in sight. Don't know much about Mao at all, but wouldn't a true Marxist reject religion?

[AndyTiedye]

213. The Nazis Also Claimed God Was On Their Side

[jackthesprat]

224. Yes.

common misperception that Nazis were atheists.

[Zhade]

248. Hitler wasn't an atheist.

This has been shown time and time again.

Likewise, as BLP notes, it was not killing done in the name of atheism.

I *do* agree that it's illogical to assume that just becoming an atheist would eliminate the very human tendency to kill each other, however.

[jus_the_facts]

13. Another problem is having to be labled by religion or lack thereof....

.....the prerequisite of living in the world means you must be classified as one of the many religions or an atheist or agnostic...why not just an animal as that's what we *humans* still are...not anything resembling perfection which we're brainwashed into believing/thinking we should be. :eyes:

[Callalily]

15. God has been

speaking to me for the last several days. He's been saying, "make tuna casserole", and you know, I think I'd better. Don't want the wrath of God after me. And hey . . . I'm hungry for the stuff anyways.

<edit for typo>

[triguy46]

19. Well, we made through half the day before we had the first...

anti religion post. Usually it doesn't take that long.

[Josephine]

136. How is this post anti-religion?

It seems to me critiqing belief is not the same as being anti-religion.

[Walt Starr]

26. There IS a Flying Spaghetti Monster and YOU know it

You MUST have been touched by his noodly appendage!

[BlueEyedSon]

31. Woo hooooo!!!!

[Zhade]

262. Do they make posters of that?

I just adore that image. It's fantastic!

[Beetwasher]

33. True!

How could I forget! I still can't get the stains off my pants.

[Pacifist Patriot]

233. Oh I am so not going to go near that one. Tempted, but I think I won't.

[Finder]

29. Excellent article...

and I hope other rational people speak out as well.

[sweetheart]

40. reaching the end of religion

Beliefs have nothing to do with the religious experience, yet religion
is determined around beliefs.

Then perhaps the mature spiritual view would be to accept truth at face
value, as much as life is described in that article. But this is seeing
that immense tragedy of human suffering from the eyes of knowing that
there are higher powers at work than simply men in this world, thankfully.

And for those mystical persons, bearers of the torch of enlightenment
for humanity, the most difficult burden to bear, as it involves bearing
nothing, putting it all down, all the preconceptions about what truth
and enlightenment is.

And accepting that god is an allegory for a profound intelligence within
life, as well as the mystical nirvana of the eastern religion allegory.
That perhaps that goodwill itself, cast as an icon in the human
consciousness, could be called god, but i must agree with this article
as of course there is no god.

There is only now, and if you find god now, then you don't bother
wondering about something you know.

:-)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

46. How Do These evil Atheist Scientist Materialists Shove Their Philosophy

down your throat? How do they do this? Do they force you NOT to pray? Do they force you to be an atheist militant scientist before running for public office? Is it by putting their materialism on public display in gov't buildings or codeifying it into law?

Do they FORCE you to think critically?

How exactly are these atheist/scientist/materialists FORCING you to do or believe anything?

[skids]

72. To be fair...

...not taking sides, but though they may not currently have the power to do so, "militant atheists" have the potential to do so.

Atheism, just like religion, has the potential to be twisted into fascism. As a family of philosphy it is not immune -- it has both harmless and destructive branches. An atheism-based fascism would directly utilize the fear of death, rather than that of a "God", to acheive its emotional dominion, the carrot being the prospect of staving off death indefinitely (a prospect that is an easier sell now in a world full of scientific advances.) The argument would be that anyone who believes in anything like a god or afterlife or even something as reasonable as a form of bodyless emergent conscious phenomina is considered "insane" and consequently disempowered.

Of course whether that happens depends entirely on the individuals involved. The atheists around here on DU are strident and outspoken, but I see no signs of militancy, and being strident and outspoken when you are a minority is completely understandable and acceptable.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

172. What an excellent point

and one I had never thought of... the concept of achieving earthy immortality.

Also you said
"The argument would be that anyone who believes in anything like a god or afterlife or even something as reasonable as a form of bodyless emergent conscious phenomina is considered "insane" and consequently disempowered."

And immediately I thought of the 19th and 20th Century approach to homosexualty, to make it pathological.

[Zhade]

268. Atheism is not a family of philosophy.

It's simply not believing in unproven gods.

No more, no less.

(I think you just described a piece of bad Christian Right fiction, btw. :P)

[Zhade]

266. Well, our currency DOES say "in no gods do we trust"...

:P

[GrpCaptMandrake]

52. Wait a Minute

Am I to understand that the people who DON'T believe that humans are mortal because some nekkid lady had a chat with a gossipy water moccasin are part of the PROBLEM?

Wow!

OK. Enlightenment's over. Everybody back on your heads! Never mind that whole "search for knowledge" thingy. It's turtles all the way down.

[gkhouston]

58. ?? I know more than a few scientists who are religious

various flavors of science and religious belief, none of them are Bible literalists, obviously. It is possible to simultaneously believe in evolution, God, and appropriate capitalization of words.

[Zhade]

270. "appropriate capitalization of words" - *snort*

Now now, don't get too mean - cryingshame always gets huffy about science, because the things s/he alleges to be true never come along with evidence to back up the assertions.

Try reading a thread on "intelligent design" where s/he responds, it's worth the chuckle.

[Book Lover]

184. I think what you're saying is very valuable

As an atheist, I would reply that I don't think any gods exist, nor is there anything that can be called "divine." Would you consider that that reply addresses your beliefs?

[trotsky]

203. There was a time when materialism was unknown

and religion and spirituality ruled the world, not science.

That time was known as the Dark Ages. Would you care to go back to it?

[Zhade]

265. Thanks for tossing me in with neocons.

That really does wonders for your argument (actually, I'm not certain WHAT your argument is, exactly).

This is a very confusing post. For example:

And some of us actually take responsibility for our Self. From the family we're born into through whatever happens to us during our lifetimes. Thus, we are not victims. And throwing off the mantle of victimhood empowers us.

What, exactly, does 'taking responsibility for the family your born into' mean? Is this another baseless claim, like your unevidenced assertions that the universe is somehow conscious? Or is it more mundane and just awkward to read?

I should alert on this post, since it basically attacks atheists, but I'd rather get an answer out of you, for once - considering all the times you've left challenges to your unproven beliefs unanswered in the past.

EDIT: I ended up alerting on this post, because it DOES attack atheists, and the mods deserve a nod for recognizing that bigotry against those who don't believe is as bad as bigotry against anyone else.

[mmonk]

45. I'm amazed this

has gone over as well as it has.

[htuttle]

48. "I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awakening.."

"I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
-- Aleister Crowley, "The Book of Lies"

[YouthInAsia]

49. I dont believe in religion either. I think it was developed as a form of

social control before there were organized law enforcement groups.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. Flamebait? Or just an excuse to bash the faithful?

Is the purpose of this post famebait or is it merely an excuse to bash the faithful? Is this progressive or tolerant?

This kind of behavior on DU makes me want to puke. It's hostile and antithetical to true progressivism. The worlds faithful are infinitely varied and billions in number. Posts like this bring out the WORST in DU and make us all look ugly, petty and small by association.

[Beetwasher]

56. Really? By Discussing An Article?

Seems like you are the intolerant one that you can't even tolerate a discussion. What are you afraid of that you are so intolerant?

[nemo137]

59. Would you have the same forbearance for an article titled

"There is a God, and you know it?" Or would you call it a blatant evangelizing brainwashing? How is this any different?

[Beetwasher]

74. Yes, I Would

I would discuss it rationally and tolerably.

I didn't write this article or the title, BTW.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

64. Who's Bashing?!

Believe what you want. But at least have the common decency to acknowledge that they are, indeed, beliefs, and don't have even a passing relationship with anything that can be proven or "known."

It's all that derned "believing" that not only GETS us in trouble, but danged well KEEPS us there.

"Believing" took us to Iraq. "Believing" brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy. "Believing" got us John Kerry as a presidential nominee.

The only salvation is knowledge.

[Zhade]

272. A minor quibble...

It's not believing itself, but believing with no evidence that the belief is true or even makes logical sense, that caused and causes those things.

This in no way undercuts your point, I just wanted to make it clearer and loophole-free.

:)

[jackthesprat]

66. How does discussing religion make anyone look ugly?

Don't see that. Even so called theologians like Kierkegaard talked about god being dead; what is wrong with discussion?

[Zhade]

271. Where, in the OP, did the one who posted it bash believers?

Don't bother - he didn't.

He didn't even WRITE the thing.

Would you prefer only articles full of glowing admiration for unproven myths be posted?

Good luck, it's not going to happen.

[Cleita]

51. Speak for yourselves.

Zeus and Thor are right up there in my pantheon. They are some of the non-material, supernatural beings that inhabit our world regardless of whatever we name them. Welcome to my world of animism. They have all kinds of agendas and temperaments like the old gods do.

Even Christians talk of angels and saints and the Trinity, their versions of the pantheon of spirits. Or, if you are an atheist, you can call them our imaginary friends. The interesting part is that no one can prove nor disprove their existence.

on edit: Just an additional thought. The Judeo-Christian God was once called Baal, which means the Lord. He once was one of several gods the Caananites and Hebrews worshipped.

[Zhade]

273. "The interesting part is that no one can prove nor disprove..."

Of course, the onus is on you to prove their existence if you want them to be considered real.

If you don't assert things with no evidence to be true, I couldn't care less if you worshipped Count Chocula (he does make a tasty, if nutritionally-dead, cereal).

[DanCa]

60. What's the goal here

To convert people to aethesism - wont happen?
To Drive people away from god - wont happen just make more spirited or turn em into fundies themselves.
To get them out of the party - It'll just make the party smaller and the repukes will keep on winning.
To stop getting the fundies to stop pushing religion on people most people on this page agree with you allready.

On a side note I was thrown out of the church along time go. Yeppers and I dont take it out on any christian here or god. I put my anger where it belongs on dubya and the fundies. And anytime you want to go picket the fundies Ill go right up to the steps of any fundie church with you. Ill even let you push my wheel chair.
So let's do something productive and direct our anger where it belongs at the fundies. Do you really care if I waste my time praying for a cure for parkinsons do you?

[triguy46]

68. amen. n/t

[Az]

69. I am curious about that as well

Its a part of an atheist manifesto. Its not something all atheists signed or even necissarily agree with. Its only a partial reading of it. And its presented almost as a challenge.

I will answer questions that arise from this thread. But I don't really understand what it was started for.

[DanCa]

76. I'll protest any fundie church as long as someone goes with me

But why stir up trouble on a message board and waste all the energy. Hell if I had two good legs I'd do it myself actually when I was excummunicated I did. Again it was through no ones fault on this board. Of course I'd perfer to deal in the real world and face my real eneimes and lobby for stem cell reasearch rather than fight at windmills.
If someone wants to pray or not it's there buisness. Having faith or not doesn't bring in class i guess.

[shrike]

103. Hey, Az

I know this is off-topic, but there's something I've wanted to ask you:

You've mentioned before that you attend a UU church. I understand that UU is made up of people of all stripes: Christians, Deists, people with no faith whatsoever. I'm just curious: what does an atheist get out of going to church? I know lifelong Christians who don't attend church because they feel it is more important to express their faith in their daily lives, rather at a church service -- and they have a point. Do the atheists and agnostics belong to UU for the fellowship? The chance to be around like-minded people? Does UU have social justice programs and outreach that I'm unfamiliar with -- I know almost nothing about Unitarians.

Please understand that this is a friendly question: you'd be satisfying my curiousity about a topic which I admit has perplexed me for quite some time, ever since I learned about UU.

[Az]

156. No problem

Different UU churchs have different flavors. Most are welcoming to atheists and nonbelievers. The key to understand UU is it is primarily about tolerance and the shared journey.

Some details. UU has no dogma. You can believe in zero gods or an ever growing pantheon of gods. You are welcome in the congregation.

Here are the seven guiding principles of the religion:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Atheists need community just as much as anyone else. Churchs have filled the position of village in our modern age in many ways. Due to technology we have become increasingly isolated. No longer do we have a group of people struggling together to weather the hardships of life. Most people of faith have their Churchs in order to find shelter in the storm. UU serves much the same purpose for those not needing a dogma delivered to them on a weekly basis.

There is a joke in UU churchs about there being two services each week. The Sermon and the Coffee hour afterwards. I would say the gathering of similar minded (not identitical) people is a major draw for many. Not having a dogma can make some of the sermons a bit dry for some. But the group as a whole brings together many voices and ideas. And UUs will talk your ear off given a chance.

Social action is nearly the dogma of the religion. There is a continuous call to examine the wrongs in society and attempt to apply a progressive understanding to correcting them. You will find everything from ecoactivists to full blown socialists running around in there. Social rights are a particular cause. UU churchs were the only ones to withdraw their support of Boy Scouts of America when they began rejecting homosexuals and atheists. They have long been performing same sex marriages. And have been active in civil rights since the very beginning.

A lot of atheists still reject anything with the taint of religion about it. It saddens me as UU churchs are havens in the storm that welcome all. Some may work god into services. If that troubles you find another. They each have their own flavor typically dependent on the congregation.

A litte joke to give insite into the religion. UU choirs are always a bit off in their music. Its because they are always reading ahead to see if they agree with what they are about to sing.

[Zhade]

275. Well, it does say AN atheist manifesto, not THE atheist manifesto.

I don't care for the hostility of the piece, myself.

[Beetwasher]

75. I Thought It Was An Interesting Article

I thought I'd share it and discuss it on my favorite discussion board. Isn't that what one does here?

[DanCa]

80. you can post any article you want ill defend your right to post it.

However theres a lot of people from both sides flaming each other right now and am not just talking about you.

[Beetwasher]

82. I'm Not Flaiming Anyone

Nor have I seen much flaming (yet), though maybe I've missed it. I am seeing some enraged believers who appear to somewhat intolerant of this post.

[DanCa]

237. I agree with you there and i am not pointing a finger at you.

i was also having dopamine drops. sorry if i over reacted.

[Zhade]

274. Personally, I think it's to stroke the writer's ego.

I'm not fond of this piece - it's quite belligerent - even if I do agree with some of its points.

But to address some of your points:


"To convert people to aethesism - wont happen?"

There's nothing to convert to. We don't believe in gods, that's all. I suppose you could consider it deprogramming, based on the severity of the fundamentalism, but I'm unaware of any atheists who actively encourage forced separation of a believer from his/her beliefs.


"To Drive people away from god - wont happen just make more spirited or turn em into fundies themselves."

Why would any atheist want to drive people away from something no one has shown exists?


"To get them out of the party - It'll just make the party smaller and the repukes will keep on winning."

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, considering how large a percentage of the Dem party is religious.


"On a side note I was thrown out of the church along time go. Yeppers and I dont take it out on any christian here or god. I put my anger where it belongs on dubya and the fundies. And anytime you want to go picket the fundies Ill go right up to the steps of any fundie church with you. Ill even let you push my wheel chair.
So let's do something productive and direct our anger where it belongs at the fundies. Do you really care if I waste my time praying for a cure for parkinsons do you?"

I've heard your story before, and I sincerely commend you for standing up for what was right (not harassing women at clinics). I have to ask about this line, though: "Yeppers and I dont take it out on any christian here or god."

Are you suggesting that atheists are people who are mad at god? If so, that's silly, because we don't get mad at things that haven't been shown to exist. If it's not what you mean, I misread you and will apologize.

And no, this atheist wouldn't be offended if you prayed for anything - I just don't see it as really doing anything.

[leeroysphitz]

62. Truth. nt

[Gregorian]

63. And the world is flat.

First, are we going to ignore those things that divide us (Democrats), or are we going to work together to make this a better country. I happen to believe that the bible contains facts. I happen to believe that Mars exists, even though I've never been there.

But I think, no, I know this subject is going to divide us. And being Democrats, we think. We're not like republicans who are just replicants, usually. So we tend not to stick together as a whole unit as well as they do.

Let's forget the god thing. I've already had my arguments on this forum. And they aren't going to get solved.

Let's get on with America. Forget about trying to come to an agreement on god.

[Zhade]

276. As long as believers don't force their beliefs on those of us who don't...

...I agree.

And sure, the bible contains facts - I mean, Egypt does exist. The Roman Empire did exist.

Mars exists, and we've seen pictures of it - just as we've taken pictures and video of the earth's oblate spheroid nature. So in that respect, your "world is flat" comment doesn't apply.

We've never seen a picture of this alleged god fellow, or even evidence it exists. But again, as long as you don't want to force others to believe unproven assertions, we'll get along fine.

[triguy46]

65. DU is trending toward intolerant of relgion and people of faith.

Is this to be the litmus test? That you be anti religion? How is this intolerance different than the freepers? Please guide me to the links on DU in which people of faith have so scorned and ridiculed atheists and agnostics.

This freakin tent is gettin smaller every day.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

77. Nobody's Being Intolerant

Anyone can believe anything.

But for one group to say that they have "received" wisdom that excludes others just because they believe in the tooth fairy/Santa Claus/Easter Bunny/Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah/Baal yadayadayada does not make them a protected class, forever immunized from having other, perhaps more rational, people point out the contradictions in the belief systems.

It's faith, ferpetessake. Stop acting like it's knowledge.

[Josephine]

97. I don't think I understand your post

I haven't seen anyone be intolerant towards religion, just someone posting an article critical of religion, which is not even close to showing intolerance of religion. But I have seen a number of really ugly posts directed towards athiests on this thread. Which is a real disappointment to me as a Christian.

[AirmensMom]

101. I agree, triguy46.

And I'm beginning to think DU is the wrong place for me. There are far too many posts like this one. If the original post doesn't ridicule people of faith, many of the replies certainly do. It quickly degrades into a flame war.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

146. Where's the flame war?

This is about the most civil discussion of religion/non-religion I've ever seen.

Again: what you choose to believe, i.e. Easter Bunny, Holy Trinity Math Made Easy, Seven-armed gods, whatever, is your business. Can't get much more tolerant than that.

[jackthesprat]

186. Flame war from the person who started the thread.

Look at his personal attacks on me.

[Zhade]

277. Intolerance? Are you serious?

It's intolerant to challenge unproven beliefs?

No, I don't think it is.

Where has anyone in this thread attacked believers for being believers?

I haven't seen it. If you find an example, let me know - just disagreeing with your beliefs is NOT intolerance, no matter how much you might wish that to be so.

[More Than A Feeling]

67. This reminds me of those Chick tracts

except not as unintentionally amusing.

Absolutist statements. Implications of insanity and delusion to those who disagree. Shallow bumper sticker arguments that are raised and dismissed out of hand. The "only we are truly enlightened" mentality.

If this is meant to convince anyone, I doubt it will have much success. However, I can imagine it would function as excellent reassurance to those who already agree with the author.

[LittleClarkie]

78. Sort of a Chick tract in reverse then?

Sometimes I think atheism is just as much it's own faith as theism. I would say "Prove it" to an atheist, but I've been around enough of them to know they will whip out the fallacy list at me and remind me that it is the person making the assertion who must prove, as you can't prove a negative.

I'm much more comfortable with the agnostic mentality, even a militant agnostic. "I dunno, and neither do you!"

Bless ol Thomas Huxley for the term. It do come in handy occasionally.

[Zynx]

84. Even though I am Catholic, I truly respect agnostics.

They tend to be the most civilized among us when it comes to this debate. A militant agnostic is a civilizing force in a room when they scream, "I don't know and neither do you.". No one can truly claim to "know" without either being arrogant and being a liar. We can believe, but not know.

[jackthesprat]

91. Don't agree.

Like being ambi-sexual.Maybe so, but maybe someone who has deeper conflicts.

[Az]

92. The trouble with agnosticism

is it doesn't really tell you the truth. Not in response to the typical conversation. For example:

Person A: So what do you believe in? Do you believe there is a god?

Agnostic: I am an agnostic. I do not know if there is a god.

Person A: Um... I didn't ask if you knew if there was a god. I asked if you believed there was.

Agnostic: er.... I guess I think there may/may not be a god.

Person A: Ahhh, then you are also a theist/atheist.

[jackthesprat]

96. wishy-washy.

Not noble to have an indecisive mind.

[Beetwasher]

99. Heh? Actually, It's The Height Of Nobility To Admit You Don't Know

Or don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. It's called honesty, and honesty is the height of nobility.

"I don't know" is not wishy-washy, it's honest.

Question: "Do you believe in god?"

Answer: "I don't know, I don't have enough evidence either way to form a belief about god."

[jackthesprat]

102. What are you waiting for?

does knowledge about calculus not exist just because you are not familiar with that discipline?

[Beetwasher]

104. Calculus is Not a "Thing" That Supposedly Has An Objective Existence

Where's the formulae that prove the existence of god? Is god a discipline? First, define god, then we can talk about evidence of it's existence and methods of determining such.

[jackthesprat]

110. many mathematicians would disagree.

God a discipline? Heard of theology? No new arguments for about 2000 years or so.

[Beetwasher]

114. What? Really?

So god IS theology? That's a new argument. Look at you, you innovator! :eyes:

What mathematician would tell me that Calculus is a thing that can be shown to exist objectively and physically, as god supposedly does? Name one.

[jackthesprat]

118. what do you know about math?

there are many schools of thought about the nature of mathematical objects. sorry, if you don't know much about theology then don't accuse me of "innovating."

[Beetwasher]

121. LOL! Umm, Yes, Objects Can Be Explained Through Mathematics

But mathematics itself is not a physical object. Does this idea elude you or merely confuse you?

Ok, Einstein, show us your proof that makes you so certain one way or another about god. Put up or shut up.

[jackthesprat]

124. apologize for the hostile, insulting tone.

and the "lol". Sorry, usually ignorant people make those kind of attacks. Not interesting. got interest in debate, I will. Want smart aleck insulting, I'm out.

[Beetwasher]

125. Of Course You're Out, You Can't Put Up

Or are you just "wishy-washy".

[jackthesprat]

132. I said nothing about proving anything.

So grow up and act like an adult.

[Beetwasher]

135. "wishy-washy."

"Not noble to have an indecisive mind."

Oh so noble one! Please enlighten us w/ your wisdom, since you seem to know it all and have decided upon the correct answer! What is the correct answer about god that you seem to know? Or are you just full of shit and not willing to be pegged down on any position?

Talk about wishy washy.

[jackthesprat]

140. have fun

I never honor hostile people with a reply because they only want to snap back insults. you have wrongly named my postition because your anger has made you blind.

[Beetwasher]

143. Umm, Chester, You Haven't Stated A Position

That's the point. You pretend you have a position but refuse to state it.

[jackthesprat]

150. Name isn't chester.

you see, your lack of calmness of mind is part of reason you don't understand my postition.

[Beetwasher]

158. You'll Always Be Chester To Me

Yes, your vague nebulous position and inability to communicate effectively and your belief that god is a thing that can be proven to exist like calculus must be my fault. :rofl:

I thought you were done w/ me?

[jackthesprat]

160. Goodbye, then.

There is your answer. You lack a calm, clear mind.

[Beetwasher]

166. And You, Well, You Just Lack

n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

225. Is mathematics invented or discovered? Read up the Philosophy of Math

Many mathematicians believe mathematics is discovered. In that sense it has an objective existence. Read up on the philosophy of mathematics.

[Catfight]

228. I tend to agree with this analogy, since the universe exist, we will

gravitate to explain it in the box, therefore, I think it's a bit of both, we invented an explanation for what already existed.

[Beetwasher]

236. That's Not What I'm Saying

Mathematics does not have the same type of physical existence as an object like my chair, or like god is supposed to have for that matter. "Mathematics" wasn't discovered, certain relationships that we explain through the discipline of mathematics is what was discovered. The "language" of "mathematics" was invented to describe these relationships, which are in fact fairly objective to some degree and do exist, but not in a traditional sense.

[Zynx]

107. True "knowledge" about the existence of a deity is unknowable.

That is the difference. It is extremely arrogant of anyone to claim true evidence.

[jackthesprat]

115. Why is it unknowable?

Says you? No, I don't agree.

[Zynx]

126. So you know? Okay, enlighten me.

[jackthesprat]

137. I know for myself.

I never said I was going to prove something to you. I said each person will come to their own conclusion. But I did say that "agnosticism" is just intellectually lazy; not that I was trying to prove something to you.

[Beetwasher]

142. No. Intellectual Laziness is Pretending to Have An Answer

When you don't and pretending the answer is out there, when it isn't. If everyone has the answer for themselves or must come to their own conclusion, then it's not "out there" and can't be found through intellectual process, but rather through introspective searching.

Agnosticism is not "intellectual laziness", it's intellectual honesty.

You can pretend otherwise, but that just makes you, well, a pretender.

[jackthesprat]

144. I can see how you dance around rational discourse.

Sign of a mind lacking clarity about itself. You chose to take my statement of agnosticism being intellectually lazy as directed toward you personallly, and took a hostile attitude toward me.
I never told you I had the answer to whatever you seem to be attacking me over, I only asserted that "not-knowing" is a very vague attitude.

[Beetwasher]

152. Well, If Not Knowing Is Vague, Do YOU Claim To Know?

The only dancing is being done by you. What is your point? That agnostics are vague and wishy washy? If so, then what do YOU believe? What do YOU know? Are you a wishy washy agnostic? What exactly is your point and position? Or do you even have one?

[jackthesprat]

163. goodbye.

[Beetwasher]

168. Thought So

Just a bag of hot air.

[jackthesprat]

177. so this was flamebait.

[Beetwasher]

183. Your post sure was

Since you have yet to do anything but call agnostics wishy washy and lazy. What's YOUR point again? What's YOUR position on the matter of god? Care to enlighten us yet? Didn't think so.

Hmm, what does one call someone who several times has said they were done w/ something and yet keeps coming back for more? Hmmm.

[Zhade]

279. Actually, I'M wondering what your point was, too.

NT!

[jackthesprat]

319. That, no offence, is your problem.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

151. But, of course, you don't "know"

you believe. Big difference between the two.

[jackthesprat]

157. I know.

I don't believe. Belief is just weak knowledge.

[Zhade]

280. How do you "know"? What do you "know"?

How can you be sure your "knowledge" isn't a mental disorder? Or bad gas?

You believe you know, but what evidence is there to suggest that belief is accurate?

[jackthesprat]

320. How do you know you are sitting at a computer typing?

[BlueEyedSon]

219. Ah, god is a personal imaginary friend. nt

[Zynx]

100. See my post below on it.

[Zynx]

98. They simply don't state a position, which is respectable.

For instance, that is like if you asked me, "What is your opinion of first century AD Parthian Kings?" I don't have a clue so it would not be wise for me to form an opinion. Similarly, agnostics are asked, "Do you believe in God or not?", they say "I don't have evidence one way or another so it would not be wise to form an opinion.".

I personally am theistic, but I respect agnostics' opinions for this reason.

[jackthesprat]

106. see my reply above.

nature of the christian god been discussed for centuries; no new information about this topic. Like I said, get educated instead of the lazy, "I don't know now....".

[Beetwasher]

108. Educated by What? Your bible? Zeus Has Also Been Discussed For Centuries

Why don't you believe in Zeus?

[jackthesprat]

112. No idea what you peg me for.

I'm not a believer.

[Beetwasher]

117. Well, Then You Claim Proof Of The Non-Existence of God?

Let's have it.

[jackthesprat]

122. Never said that.

I'll debate my statements, not the ones you put in my mouth.

[Beetwasher]

130. It Was A Question, Not A Statement About What You Said

So go ahead, debate your position, whatever that might be. It seems you claim to have some answer about god, that's why those of us who say we don't know are "wishy-washy" and "lazy". Otherwise, what is your point? Put up Einstein. Why don't you enlighten us mere mortals as to what the correct answer is regarding god?

[jackthesprat]

133. You obviously are not interested in knowledge.

you are all hostility and arrogance. Let me know when you want intelligent, calm discussion. If you want to win some abstract debating points....well.....

[Beetwasher]

LOL! Oh, I'm Interested In Knowledge, You Just Don't Seem To Have Any

:shrug:

Lay it on us, Swami. I guess I'm not worthy. :eyes:

[jackthesprat]

153. more hostitlity and name calling.

Do you follow? This is why you lack clarity of mind.

[Beetwasher]

165. Yes, I See You Have Clarity Of Mind

So clear there's nothing there.

[Zhade]

281. Oddly, your posts READ like a believer.

"I don't believe. I know."

[jackthesprat]

321. Again, no offence, you need to read better.

[Zynx]

116. Yes, but definitive proof is not obtainable.

Also, it likely never will be. While my example is not perfect in that sense since information on 1st century A.D. Parthian kings is obtainable, my point remains.

[spunky]

230. But, can't one be an expert on all religious texts and still not "know"

whether god exists or not?

The question of the existence or non-existence of a higher power has nothing to do with what mortals have written that he/she/it may or may not have said and done.

I mean, L. Ron Hubbard wrote that Xenu stuck a bunch of people on a volcano and brainwashed them with a film for 36 hours, but that doesn't mean it happened.

What is lazy about saying, "I have read the bible but I still do not know whether or not God exists. I will not be arrogant enough to suppose I know the answer to a question that has been debated for millenia, so I will refrain from giving an answer."

Because in the end, the atheist only "believes" there is no God. I call myself an atheist because in the absence of proof of god's existence, it makes the most sense to me to say he does not exist. I am perfectly willing to admit I could be wrong, but I decided to get off the fence. That doesn't make me less lazy than someone who has done an equal amount of examination and has decided that to proclaim the non-existence of God is the same as proclaiming the existence of God- both are beliefs.

[jackthesprat]

245. expert? Never used that word; not implied either.

As a professor once told the class, expertise is one way to avoid the subject.
Also, speaking of that professor, he said that there are maybe 5 or so descriptions of God--I would narrow that down to about one or two.
L. Ron Hubbard is a science fiction writer; don't care about that stuff.
If you really have read the Bible and are still agnostic I would say you have "bad faith": refusing to answer a question you really do know how to. The "arrogance" argument keeps coming up...don't really know why. I think it is arrogant to assume that because one is unable to decide an issue, it is the nature of the issue and not one's own indecisiveness. Even Jesus said, You are either for me or against me.
The debate really has not been going on, there really is just "do you believe in God or not."
Hegel said that the modern(meaning Christian) metaphysics makes God itself the question; rather than the ancient metaphysic of describing the nature of the world.
Thus, Christianity invented atheism as a way to dominate people; both their own population and other nations.

[spunky]

258. It is kind of implied by saying "get educated"

but okay, swap "expert" for "well educated" and the question remains.

If you really have read the Bible and are still agnostic I would say you have "bad faith": refusing to answer a question you really do know how to.

I disagree. The bible tells you nothing about God. It tells you about some people's opinions on god. There is a big difference. God didn't write the Bible. People did.

Others have asked you to say how you "know" whether or not there is a god, and you have not answered them. Let me ask you this:

On what criteria ought one base one's decision? What would be adequate proof that god does exist and what would be adequate proof that god does not exist?

[jackthesprat]

260. One hostile person asked.

And I told him I don't respond to hostility--that's that.

You raised question of the Bible; I just replied. I never asserted Bible only place that discusses God.

If you read my statement you are replying to, you would realize that I consider the question of belief to be somewhat phony.
I know I don't believe in the Christian God. Why? Because I don't. I trust what I consider to be be true like I trust my perception that a car is headed my way--move!
My point really that the very question is itself kind of atheistic: Why make believing in God the essence of truth? Why "belief?"
If you look at the history of the question, St Anselm or St Thomas Aquinas, you see that the question is really for the church to dominate the population. Look at texts of europeans coming to America declaring that the "savages" don't believe in God(christianity) and therefore have no souls and can be killed without guilt.
This is second time I answered your question so please read it and consider it before a third time asking exactly same question.

[spunky]

264. Sorry, guess I'm a bit slow sometimes.

I was using the Bible as an example of one religion, one personification of god.

Seems to me that you are not talking about belief in God, you are talking about belief in gods.

I think most people in this thread are asking how can one know that an actual, real, all knowing, all powerful God exists or does not exist. The christian god, or the muslim god or whatever are just human constructs of what some imagine God, if He/She/It exists to be like. There is a subtle but important difference.

[jackthesprat]

322. No. So I guess we are finished.

Can't debate if you don't understand the terms.

[Zhade]

283. Atheism existed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY before Christianity.

Now I think you're just making things up.

Before religions existed at all, people didn't believe in gods. Thus, atheist.

(Note that I didn't say they didn't believe in supernatural explanations for events. Just gods.)

[jackthesprat]

323. No idea what you are debating.

But if you want to put some facts to substantiate your argument, I'd love to see it.

[Zhade]

282. Gotta call you on this...

"Because in the end, the atheist only "believes" there is no God."

I do not believe there are no gods. I just haven't seen any evidence that would make me believe in them.

Make sense?

[spunky]

326. Yes it makes sense. Sometimes language irritates me and I don't use it

well.

I should have just spoken for myself there,or for some atheists. I believe there are no gods, and I accept I could very well be wrong.

[Az]

111. But there is the problem

If you believe in god then you are a theist.

If you do not believe in god then you are an atheist.

Not having an opinion puts you in the not believing camp. Even if you are open minded you are still currently without a belief in god.

A lot of the problems of this issue come from the angry denouncements of god from the more vocal and admittedly angry atheists.

Call it what you will. Not believing in god means you do not believe in god. You cannot believe and not believe in god at the same time.

[Zynx]

123. Now we are getting into finely cut definitional matters.

Theists have taken the firm position, "I think, based on what I have known and observed, that there is a God."

Atheists have taken the firm position, "I think, based on what I have known and observed, that there is no God."

Agnostics say, "I think that there is not enough out there to know and observe that would indicate the existence of God one way or the other."

I do think there are these three positions.

[Az]

176. Where the definitions come from

The definitions above are derived from a theist dominated society. It has long been the contention of fire and brimstone style clergy and philosophers that god damns people for their actions. That specifically it is what you choose to do that damns you rather than god. Thus an atheist must of chosen to defy god and thus declares their active belief that there is no god.

Its really the only way they can reconcile the inhumanity of condenming a person for honestly professing their lack of belief in god. When challenged by these individuals an honest atheist can only answer that they do not believe in god. When an active belief in god is the criteria by which you are bured to death or not it changes things.

But if we remove the question from the control of those that believe in god and simply examine the word we find quite a different story.

Theist is easily understood. It specifically means someone that believes in god or gods.

The prefix 'a' is known to mean without. Thus an atheist is specifically someone that is without a belief in god or gods. This can include people that proclaim there are no gods. But it can also include someone that just really hasn't thought about it much and just doesn't happen to think there is a god.

The problem with the three terms as a means of addressing the issue is it is incomplete. Agnosticism doesn't really tell us anything. It informs us that they are not absolutely certain of the subject. But honestly that is true for everyone. Even people that believe they have spoken directly to god cannot be absolutely sure they have not become deluded in some way. They may protest and declare their absolute certainty. But it is the failure of our own makeup that creates this dilema. Our senses can simply be fooled.

Yes you will find dictionary definitions of atheist that proclaim we deny the existance of god. But its still the believers defining us thus. It almost presumes that god exists and we turn our backs on him/her/it. It presupposes we make an active descision to deny god damn the consequences. The simple truth is we just do not happen to believe in god for any number of reasons. It is not a choice. I could no more believe in god at this moment than a theist could choose to not believe in god. Beliefs arise from a conideration of our current understanding of the world around us. Beliefs are our own recognition of what our mind currently understands to be true.

[jackthesprat]

129. Yes, formally speaking , yes.

But was Aristotle and atheist? Plato? Kierkegaard? Is Buddhism atheistic?

[Az]

180. No, No, No, Perhaps

Aristotle and Plato both argued for notions of god. Perhaps not the god of the bible. But gods none the less. Kierkegaard was drive by his antipathy to god. You need to believe in god to hate god. Particularly if you think he is out to get you.

Buddhism is not inherantly theistic. There are references to entities but it is acceptable to think of these are ideals rather than acutal beings. Thus a Buddhist can be either theist or atheist. Depending on their interpretation of the teachings.

[jackthesprat]

194. Aristotle called god "thought thinking itself."

not remotely like christianity--more like Buddhism. Plato is usually considered a mono-theist(as Nietzsche called christianity "platonism for the masses). Kierkegaard is complex, but he once said that God died before(on the cross) and could leave and come back.
As for Buddhism, I don't think it could be called theistic, but rarely do you find God believing Buddhists...otherwise they'd probably be christians.

[Az]

197. And remember Socrates last words

I drank what? :rofl:

[jackthesprat]

201. Actually, Socrates last words were rather odd.

He said that whether the soul continues on or simply ends cannot be decided rationally. He then declared that he thought his own soul would continue on. I ended up appreciating Aristotle a lot more.

[Az]

205. Certainly comforting

But I would disagree with the absolute nature of the comment. The problem with deciding things is contrained by the time and undertanding you have at that time. Our depth of understanding of nature and ourselves is constantly advancing. His statement is true only for his time and degree of understanding (considerable though it was). Perhaps in time, perhaps even now there is enough understanding to make a reasonable conclusion on the subject.

[jackthesprat]

208. what new information?

never heard an update of Socrates "dilema."

[Az]

210. Cognitive studies

We are coming to a greater and deeper understanding of the nature of the mind. The more we understand the nature of the mind the more we can form positive theories concerning the effects of death on the mind.

[jackthesprat]

212. haven't seen anything.

not even close. soul is a poetic concept.

[PassingFair]

113. Semantics.

My personal favorite definition of Agnostic:

An atheist with low self-esteem.

[jackthesprat]

169. Well, a joke, but about sums it up.

[trotsky]

206. If a god is defined in such a way as to be self-contradictory,

then active non-belief in such a god is not arrogant, it's reasonable and sensible.

[jackthesprat]

214. I tend to agree.

Amazing the number of christians saying god can't be defined then blame you for not believing properly.

[Zhade]

278. Atheists who aren't dicks DON'T claim to know.

We just don't believe your unproven myths to be factual.

That's hardly arrogant or lying. It's just how it is. Don't. Believe.

That's all.

[jackthesprat]

88. what does worshipping the non existence of god look like?

What buildings do people congregate in on regular basis to hold ceremonies praying to the non existent god? Just wondering....

[BlueEyedSon]

187. Nonsense. It is not logical to prove the nonexistence of something,

that is the default position (why not Zeus, Thor, Shiva?)

Try reading this:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

[triguy46]

83. Yikes! The atheists are now on the religion and theology page!!

They will object to the existence of this!! They will not be able to tolerate having their words associated with such inanity (And you know it!!)

[Az]

86. We have been here since day one

We are used to it. :D

[GrpCaptMandrake]

87. Thank Dog For Mark Twain

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm

Makes more sense than a whole chuckwagonload of Bibles

[Taxloss]

89. Wow, a lot of people are quick to claim they're being persecuted

by two paragraphs cut and pasted sans commentary from a leading leftist weblog.

Of course, I doubt they would react so strongly if there was an article titled "There is a God (and you know it)". But articles like that don't really have to exist, because that's the avowed view of the US government.

I'll tell you what, oh persecuted ones: get back to criticising "militant atheists" when atheists aren't barred from public office in the USA.

[stopbush]

93. God tries to do the right thing,

but with Americans uttering of "god-damnits" outweighing "god-helpit"s on a 10-to-1 basis, god has to go with the damning...:)

[stopbush]

105. Militant atheism? Who in the hell thinks up these labels?

The rest of the world is trending to giving up the gods - Thor, Zeus, Jesus, Mithras, whoever, they're all myths - and finally getting about the business of taking responsibility for their lives, while here in America we're heading back to the Dark Ages lickity split.

Militant atheism is as much a BS label as most fantasy-based religious dogma. In the age of science, who's the militant here?

On edit: I respect the right of anybody in the world to have their religious beliefs, whether it be in Thor, Zeus, Jesus, Yahweh or Santa Claus. What these belivers *shouldn't* expect is that their belief in an "acceptable in this day and age" god fantasy like Jesus should have any more standing in today's world than the old Roman or Greek gods for the simple reason that belief in ANY of them is an act of faith. Their existence is and always will be unprovable. You can no more prove that Jesus existed than you can prove that Zeus existed.

I don't understand how present-day religionists who can scoff at the ancient Roman, Greek and Norse gods can expect people to believe in their gods-du jour.

[Zhade]

289. Militant believers would be my guess.

:evilgrin:

[Alpharetta]

109. horrible logic. useless article

If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.

False.

Religion has contradictions. We have free will but God knows the future, for example. Didn't Kennedy say the mark of intelligence is living with two apparently opposing thoughts?

Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality.

So?

Actually, pious readers will say God is not to be judged.

But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place.

False.

What's saddest is the writer's sniping at religion without a background in comparative religions where so many theologies range.

And then there's downright dishonesty. Amazing how many so-called atheists believe in the supernatural force called "Luck" but won't admit it because then they'd have to admit to a belief.

[PassingFair]

128. You, of course also believe Zeus, Hera and Apollo.

And you cannot gainsay Raelianism without spending YEARS researching their religion.

All accounts of extraterrestrial visitations must be taken at face value.

No skepticism is warranted. Ever.

Is there a difference between luck and chance?

My idea of "downright dishonesty" is someone who believes that anyone who is not indoctrinated by religion deserves no say on the topic.

[Alpharetta]

192. religious people are not required to believe ALL religions

Is there a difference between luck and chance?

Some might say so. Some who claim no beliefs also believe there is an irony in the application of chance which violates statistical laws. That's the "luck" I refer.

My idea of "downright dishonesty" is someone who believes that anyone who is not indoctrinated by religion deserves no say on the topic.

And who might that be? I said he should study comparative religions in order to understand the futility of categorizing all religious people.

[PassingFair]

267. How dare you not believe in ALL religions!

How narrow of you.

[Zhade]

293. Atheists don't claim no beliefs, they claim no beliefs in gods.

Huge, glaring difference - one I think you probably are smart enough to have already known.

The author is correct in categorizing all religious people who believe in gods as believing in beings for which there is no proof. One does not need to study comparative religions to know an unevidenced assertion is not to be taken at face value as true.

Do you get equally offended by those who state that there is no evidence of Baal's existence? After all, there's as much evidence for its existence as any other god's.

[Alpharetta]

310. we are each entitled to our beliefs.

we are each entitled to our beliefs. The fact that atheists have ANY beliefs is comforting to me. To me, it demonstrates the power of belief. And if they, for a bonus, believe in unexplainable luck, I call that a toe in the waters of the supernatural ocean.

Do you get equally offended by those who state that there is no evidence of Baal's existence?

Your question assumes I'm offended by those who state there is no evidence of MY god's existence. I'm not offended.

The author is correct in categorizing all religious people who believe in gods as believing in beings for which there is no proof. One does not need to study comparative religions to know an unevidenced assertion is not to be taken at face value as true.

The author goes much further. He categorizes all "faithful" as using "human standards of morality" to establish God’s goodness. I'll say it again. A study of comparative religion would give the author the insight that not all religions even attempt to establish God's goodness.

[Zhade]

313. "The fact that atheists have ANY beliefs is comforting to me."

You sound like my mom (not that that's a bad thing, mind you). When I told her I was an atheist, she asked, "But you believe in SOMETHING, right?"

As if not believing in unproven gods means anything other than not believing in unproven gods!

I don't really believe in luck, though.


"Your question assumes I'm offended by those who state there is no evidence of MY god's existence. I'm not offended."

You sounded offended. But, as this is not the case, I'll ask a different question: why do you believe the myths of Christianity over, say, the Greek myths?


"The author goes much further. He categorizes all "faithful" as using "human standards of morality" to establish God’s goodness. I'll say it again. A study of comparative religion would give the author the insight that not all religions even attempt to establish God's goodness."

This is a fair point, and I must confess to not having read the entirety of the linked piece, as I do not care for the belligerence manifest in it.

I stand by the larger point, however: one does not to possess more than rudimentary logic to understand that unproven assertions should not be accepted at face value as true.

[Az]

131. Some points

First let me say I am not defending the article. I believe it is not properly presented. It is a manifesto of a particular group of atheists. That being said it is their own internal reasoning and shared understanding of what they rally around. Its original intent is not really for public discourse. Its sort of like tossing out a description of hell and asking a group of diverse individuals to discuss whether they agree with the punishments for nonbelievers.

But I would like to address some of the objections you have.

"the mark of intelligence is living with two apparently opposing thoughts?"

There is living with and accepting. There can be many things in life that give us a dilema of thought. We have to live with it. But to just accept it and not pursue a resolution seems to me to be the opposite of intelligence. To paraphrase Martin Luther, to have faith you must first pluck out the eye of reason.

"Amazing how many so-called atheists believe in the supernatural force called "Luck" but won't admit it because then they'd have to admit to a belief."

Um you will find that acceptance of notions such as luck are rare amongst atheists. Certainly not nonexistant. But I cannot think of any atheist I know personally that believes in luck... no strike that, I can think of one.

Atheists believe lots of things. Each is their own individual. The one thing they do not believe in is god. But thats all you know from the defintion.

[Alpharetta]

196. "Atheists believe lots of things."

That's my favorite point. It doesn't prove any of my arguments, but I like the fact that atheists believe in things.

[Zhade]

290. Your logic isn't all that great, either.

"We have free will but God knows the future, for example."

That's a belief, not an example.


"Amazing how many so-called atheists believe in the supernatural force called "Luck" but won't admit it because then they'd have to admit to a belief."

Something to back this up besides your unevidenced assertion?

[Alpharetta]

318. yes it is

"We have free will but God knows the future, for example."

I listed it as an example of opposing beliefs.

Something to back this up besides your unevidenced assertion?

Someone earlier in the thread admitted they also knew an atheist who believes in Luck. That's the best I can do. Good luck in your journey.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

120. I think this is why the Religious Right hates us?

"There is no God."

Oooh! This will have us comming together for SURE now... :eyes:

[dretceterini]

138. There is a difference between spirituality and religion

an anti-thiest sees what most call God as the sum total of all existance, rather than some force outside of existance which manifested it. Sort of a panentheistic, zen view of the world, if you will. I would call this a spiritual, rather than a religious view.

An athiest simply does not believe in a God of any kind...

[stopbush]

239. Better to lie and say their is a god when you don't believe it?

Wouldn't that make me a republican?

[YOY]

127. Religion ain't so bad...but when clowns get a hold of it LOOKOUT!

and I would have to agree that we shove too much religion down people's throats in this country.

[Inland]

139. Why don't atheists ever ask a believer how religion reconciles this?

Or a theologian?

There is something really annoying about atheists "discovering" one of the perplexing aspects of any religious belief and then announcing that the game is over---without so much as knowing of, much less referring to, a few thousand years of thought on the very same subject.

Is it merely a contempt for the believer and the subject matter?

I mean, I just threw out my Chicago Tribune compilation of statements of clergymen after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, their contemplations on how a 4/0 God and disaster exist. Good stuff, and for fifty cents, the poster could have had food for thought. But instead, he only argues with himself, and finding himself unable to reconcile religious beliefs, declares himself to be wise and the religious to be, well, nuts and stupid. Ironic, huh?

"Christmas Trees were originally pagan symbols! Catholic Popes were bad! Take THAT, believers!" Yeah, no kidding. I was taught that by the seventh grade. By nuns.


All I am saying is that an atheist might want to learn something about a subject before declaring it to be internally inconsistent.

[More Than A Feeling]

149. Good question

maybe its a fear about potential proselytization?

[Inland]

164. Fear? Contempt?

I don't know. I don't expect a response.

[jackthesprat]

167. Response to what exactly?

What are you referring to?

[Inland]

175. Post #139. nt

[jackthesprat]

178. ok.

[Zhade]

301. Been there, done that.

I tried Christianity several times, even was briefly a Mormon (!).

Didn't take.

I don't fear proselytization. I just don't tolerate it. I find it a waste of my time.

However, as I replied to Inland's #139, I still ask questions to understand believers' mindsets.

[Zhade]

298. Some of us HAVE asked those questions.

Some of us got whacked hard for asking them, when we attempted and failed to hold a belief in unproven myths.

I asked the other day how believers can accept one part of the Christian bible as allegory (say, the Great Flood) and another as literal (the purported resurrection of Jesus). I asked how they can pick and choose which fantastic supernatural claim is literally true and which is not meant to be taken thus.

Silence.

I asked why the belief that a god literally exists must be accepted by believers as fact and not allegory.

Silence - except for Az, an atheist!

Please don't assume no atheists ask questions. We do. Often, we're accused of "bashing" someone's beliefs, when in fact we're trying to understand how a rational person can pick and choose which myth to insist is true.

Why do some believe god exists, and not Zeus? Why does one unproven being hold more sway over one person than another unproven being?

We're asking, but we frequently get shouted down, insulted, maligned, or ignored.

But we keep asking, because - at least in my case - I really don't get it. I just don't understand what drives believers to accept things that, if the names were changed, they'd probably decline to believe in.

I mean, Christians don't believe in Mithra, despite the striking parallels between the two myths.

[Inland]

304. And I asked somebody about particle physics.

I mean, I believe there is a particle physics. But who would ever infer from my inability to explain it, or my fundamental ignorance of the finer points, that no such thing exists or that the theory of quantum mechanics in fundamentally flawed?

Turns out, that's the exact attitude of the religious fundamentalist arguing against evolution. They stand in the school boardroom and throw their hands up.

And I don't think it's any different for the huff blog guy. He doesn't get it, and because he doesn't get it, religion must be fundamentally wrong and himself right. If he had asked some religious person this great question, he would have gotten an answer. He might not have been convinced, but he would have had to argue against an actual religious thought, rather than wishing them away and pretending they don't exist. He could have moved on to a zillion theologians. Did anyone think that this is the first time this has come up? I mean, it was in the Trib, for cry-eye. Not the sunday magazine. Weekday Tempo. Same section as the comics.

The blog poster is a disingenous coward out to score points on the religious by arguing both sides of the issue himself, but one side really badly, ending up with the conclusion that the religious are not only mistaken but self deluded since, well, there doesn't seem to be ANY ARGUMENT TO BE MADE TO THE CONTRARY.

Really, it's not the insult to belief that is so irritating about the post, since I don't hold any brief in that regard whatsoever. It's the shitty, unfair and disingenous argument made, ironically, in defense of rationality and against dogmatic unsupported assertions of fact that is so striking. Fundamentalist christians and dogmatic atheists are two sides of the same coin, as far as I can tell.

[Zhade]

307. Out of sincere curiousity - do you have answers for my questions?

I'd like to know your thoughts on them.

[Inland]

309. Nope. I know just enough to say that

there are experts who have been thinking about exactly those questions and studying the work of other people who have been thinking about exactly those questions. "Theology". It's been a big deal in the West for about eight hundred years, stimulated by schism and doubt and yes, hitching belief to politics.

And if I were super interested, I'd look that up. I sure as hell would do it before declaring religion internally inconsistent, just as the fundamentalist should get himself educated before he says evolution just doesn't make sense.

That's what I would do if I wanted ANSWERS. "Answers" is a tall order, and the fact is, I'm not particularly interested in working hard to get answers in the religion area. I'm more interested in the politics of it.

[Zhade]

312. Oh, but I meant your personal answers, not that of academia.

Correct me if I'm mistaken (which I very well may be), but aren't you a Christian?

I was interested in your personal answers to how a believer can pick one myth over another.

If I am in error in recalling you to be a believer, please forgive the mistake.

[Inland]

314. Like I said, I dont have much interest.

To put me in any category of believer/nonbeliever would probably insult anyone who actually spent a lot of time thinking about these things. I don't pick, not out of any good quality but a sincere lack of effort.

It's probably that lack of interest that allows me to see some who go into the atheist/believer debate as two sides of a coin in the more interesting, to me, intersection of politics and religious debate.

[Zhade]

316. So you don't really believe in unproven supernatural mythical events?

I suppose you wouldn't be able to answer my question, then!

:)

[Inland]

324. I can't personally vouch for any answers.

I can only tell you, sometimes, what others have considered answers--but like I keep saying, I'm not interested in THAT debate, and I come to DU for subjects more to my interest.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

141. A question for the non-believers participating in this discussion...

Do you support the author's implication that believers are delusional and insane?

[alittlelark]

145. I don't think the author implied they are 'insane'.

But, if I raise my children to believe in The Flying Spagetti Monster - they will likely continue that belief.

[More Than A Feeling]

155. This quote...

"Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this."

The implication being that if you continue to disagree,or don't accept the premise of the question, you are insane.

[alittlelark]

173. The larger quote shows the real question being asked.

'Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. '

I am an atheist. I was a Christian.

I have seen much more Athiest bashing than Christian bashing.

There is a reason 'The Tree of Knowledge' was forbidden. If you overthink religion it goes away. For better or worse, it just goes away. I miss it sometimes. It was 'comfortable'.

I have many Christian friends, and few atheist friends.

We do not try to convert each other.

[More Than A Feeling]

189. Overthinking religion makes it go away?

I think C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and J.R.R. Tolkien would disagree, just to name a few of the more intellectual believers.

[jackthesprat]

174. Well that idea turned me into an "atheist."

Or more properly, a non-Christian.

[jackthesprat]

147. I don't.

But then I don't bother with atheism as a belief system; too much else going on in the world.

[Josephine]

148. Well, I'm not an atheist

But I can see how an atheist might think anyone who has religious faith was insane. Think about how modern people regard Aztec sacrifices or the milk "drinking" statues in India or the stains that look like the Virgin Mary. When I think of some of the crazy things done to the witches in Salem I have to wonder at the sanity of those folks. When i hear about the bizarre beliefs of, say, the Mayan Indians, I have to wonder how they could have come to those conlcusions. Maybe athiests are just less selective and regard everyone equally?

[Zhade]

308. "or the milk "drinking" statues in India"

You have no idea how funny that is - we actually had a DUer a couple months back argue that this happened - "really for real!"

:rofl:

Needless to say, the thread was hilarious. Too bad you missed it!

[dretceterini]

159. The vast majority of Christians

have NO idea what the religion is about. It is about the teachings of Jesus and NOT church agenda. How can anyone know what the bible really says unless they know Aribic, Aramaic and Hebrew WHICH ARE THE LANGUAGES JESUS SPOKE (they are all closely related)...NOT Greek or English. Bible scholars such as George Lamsa and Rocco Errico, who are fluent in Aramaic, say there were at least 15,000 mistranslations by 1611.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

171. Let's start with the definition of "delusion"

According to M-W, in the context within which we are discussing it, a delusion is "false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts and occurs in some psychotic states"

One is hard-pressed to shoehorn religion into this definition because the definition is self-defeating by reference to "false belief." Beliefs are neither true nor false, as they are not grounded in traditional true/false knowledge.

Religion is what it is: an absolutely unproveable conundrum in which "believers" conflate knowledge with belief.

Now, is that "sane?" I'd guess it probably falls within acceptable parameters of sanity on a DSM-IV scale, as long as the belief system doesn't cause the believer to become a danger to himself or others.

When, on the other hand, religious beliefs become part of a matrix used to convince a large number of people to do evil things, say, for instance, invade a helpless country that never did harm in the first place, then perhaps it does, in fact, become part of a profile of group insanity.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

179. But you do not know my

personal experiences with a deity because I have not shared them. How can you be certain they were not real, just because you did not have them? You have not lived my life or been in my mind. Is that not enormously ego-centric of you?

Personally I am willing to accept the mystery of life, knowing that others have skills, visions, knowledge, understanding, that I cannot access and never will.

You mention the DSM-IV scale and it immediately occurs to me that you refer to this with the same assumption of authority that many save for the Bible.. but sanity and insanity is a human invention.

[jackthesprat]

182. I hope sanity/insanity a human invention; what else?

William James argued that personal experiences("mystical") can't be proof of anything other than to oneself.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

190. Absolutely

I completely agree with William James. I can't prove anything to you and you cannot prove anything to me. That is the essence of personal faith.

You either have it or you don't.

Now, you can live as if you have it, which is a nice cultural thing that makes your mama happy.

[Zhade]

311. "How can you be certain they were not real"

I'm going to be as gentle as I can with this: how can you be certain they WERE real?

How do you know they were not some other phenomena, perhaps only in your mind?

Please don't think this is an attack. It's not. It's a question, and an important one. How can you convince others your experiences were real when you yourself really have no way to know they represent what you believe them to represent?

[jackthesprat]

181. When churches start paying property taxes,

I'll let them be benign. Since they don't, and force nonsense like posting 10 commandments in court houses, I am less able to give them a pass.

[Az]

188. Insane? No

Delusional is a problematic word. As an atheist I clearly believe that those that believe in god have got something wrong.

Belief in god is common enough in this world that it is clear it does not come from a mental disease or incapacity. It seems to be something that arises fairly easily within the human psyche.

The human mind can operate within mental structures suggesting all manner of things about the world around it. Being absolutely right is not as important to the mind as being functional. Thus belief systems seem to trend towards building stronger and more functional social structures. As long as they do not conflict with reality in obvious ways they will continue to be of use to the mind.

But when they begin to conflict with reality trouble arises. Functionality is dependent on the situation. As our understanding of the world around us increases things which were once easily explained away within belief systems can conflict with new ideas. So over history we have seen a march of adaption and evolution of religions.

But as our understanding of reality has increased it has become more complex. Thus the understanding may not have as immediate an impact on the teachings of certain beliefs. As the gap widens it becomes increasingly difficult to explain the disparities. And to those that have embraced the changes in understanding and see the continuity of how they came about, those who cling to older beliefs may seem to be deluded on the particular issues in question.

[Zhade]

303. I think it's possible, yes.

Do I think it's a given? No.

It all depends on the context. If a believer insists, as the late, not-missed DUer Stunster did, that god literally talks to them repeatedly, then yes, I wonder about their mental health.

I wonder how it is they know it's their god, and not an auditory hallucination, "a blot of mustard, an undigested bit of beef", or whatever.

People who "feel" their god in their life, likewise, may be feeling something else entirely. I don't have a clue, I'm not them.

But to insist that unproven myths are literally, factually true - ESPECIALLY in light of evidence to the contrary, like say evolution - is questionable, IMHO.

The best answer I can give is "I don't know. Might be."

[HR_Pufnstuf]

162. Man created God to explain the unknown.

Creation of God by Man is true.

God creating Man is then false.

Hence, God exists, but only in the minds of mortal Man.


q.e.d.

[chicagomd]

223. Now apply that thought to something else.

That post made me think about our economy and the fact that we are off any gold standard that links our currency to anything tangible.

Hence, our economy exists, but only in our minds.

[DarkTirade]

193. I'm just going to point out a few things about 'intelligent design'...

If there was an intelligent designer, then
1) My most sensitive body part would NOT be dangling down where anything can hit it, especially in such a place that anything can hit my leg going upwards and just slide right into said sensitive part.
2) On that note, no sane designer would put the sexual/pleasure organs right there along with the waste production. And no sane designer would make our airway the same as our food and waterway.
3) Earlobes. What the hell are THEY for?

That's about all for now. :)

[jackthesprat]

199. Funny. Much needed comedy break.

[Memekiller]

200. As an atheist, this column offends me...

The idea that God punishes bad people with calaminty is something that has been dismissed by theologians since the Age of Reason. Any theologian of any major denomination has grappled with the issue of why bad things happen to good people, and there are many reasonable explanations for it. The arrogant and intolerant tone of this article does not do atheists any favors.

[jackthesprat]

204. right.

these kind of attacks are used to show how arrogant and intolerant "atheists" are, as if there is a body of ideas that all atheists agree upon.

[Az]

209. Theologians

I sense the same dilema is impacting them as some supporters of science and specifically evolution seem to be confronting.

Theologians and others that deeply consider the matters of liturgy seem much more adaptive to advancing social understanding. The reconsider issues in the doctrine and examine how it may be reinterpretted. They make deliberate efforts to examine their own understanding of things.

As they do so their desciptions become increasingly complex and further removed from the people not on the same journey of exploration as they. This begins to create a gap between what these informed scholars percieve and what the rest of the faithful believe.

Many people truly believe that disasters are the result of god. They are not plugged into the same reasoning as the theologians you mention.

[Memekiller]

211. It's the non-denominational fundamentalists...

They have no theologians. Any Bubba with a bullhorn can lead a flock. The mainstream denominations are pretty reasonable, and require advanced degrees for advancement in the church.

[jackthesprat]

216. don't know if being mainstream makes you reasonable.

know some Lutheran churches who fully support the Iraq war quite proudly--that is not reason.

[Az]

217. In general I agree

But there are growing examples of some mainstream denomintions trying to roll back the clock. Conversely there are examples of other mainstream denoms actively moving forward (ie the recent Catholic church letter admitting that the bible may not be literally true).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

227. It's the denominational fundamentalists ...

It's the denominational fundamentalists who supposedly should have theologist and claim they do but don't. For example Robertson and Falwell and the other nuts who are constantly claiming hurricanes have been sent by god to punish homosexuals. Bah!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

285. Maybe somebody needs to tell

Franklin Graham, huh? I didn't care for the tone of the article either, though. I enjoy reading the philosophies of all sorts of thinkers, but it was the "and you know it" zinger that I found annoying. Because I don't know it. And either can he.

Bottom line is nobody knows for sure. Just like life after death. A mystery we have to accept.

[Catfight]

226. This is very interesting to me. In fact, I think, if you don't' believe in

life after death, then you live a fuller life and don't wait for a better life that may or may not happen. I for one don't really see it as all that bad when the lights permanently go out and I'm possibly just recycled cells into the universe. Of course the idea of seeing my loved ones in some sort of after life is enticing, it's not what I live for today. Therefore, I think by not counting on some eternal salvation makes me more responsible about life and how I treat the universe in relationship as being united in the circle of life. I couldn't imagine hurting another human because we all are the same, a species occupying space on this planet. No one is more qualified or deserving than another to occupy space and have life. I don't need a god to understand that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

234. Of course God exists.

It's in the dictionary. ;) The problem is that the symbol can mean virtually anything.

[jackthesprat]

249. Hamlet exists? Ok.

[Pacifist Patriot]

305. Yep. Him too. *grin*

[beam me up scottie]

327. It speaks volumes about the insecurity of some believers on DU,

that there are so many hateful posts directed at the atheist that wrote this book, the atheist that posted it here and the atheists that responded in this thread.

If you take the time to read the comments on the blog where this was originally posted, you will find that most of her readers are incredibly open minded and most believers appear to be secure enough in their faith to not feel threatened by the article or the author.

There are very few angry, defensive and spiteful replies, certainly nothing comparable to the ratio in this thread.

If I had any doubts about which group is incapable of reasonably discussing religion on DU, they're gone now.

[beam me up scottie]

328. Coming Out Against Religious Mania

Richard Dawkins' response to the article:

Coming Out Against Religious Mania

Congratulations to Sam Harris on a characteristically brilliant broadside. His book, 'The End of Faith' is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.

Articles like Harris's are valuable, not because they will change the minds of religious idiots like Bush or those who voted for him, but because they will have a 'consciousness-raising' effect upon the intelligent. There are millions of intelligent atheists out there who are too frightened to come out and admit it, because American society has allowed itself to drift into a state where religious mania has become the respectable norm. But every time a Sam Harris raises his voice in public, it will give courage to other intelligent people to come out. Maybe there are some – intelligent but not well educated – who didn't even realise atheism is a respectable option.

I know, I agree, it is easy for me, living in Britain where religion has no power and it is religious people who feel the need to apologise (despite the paradoxical existence of an established church with the queen as its head). But America will change only when a critical mass of people is prepared to 'come out'. The more that do, the more that will.

I really don't mean to sound presumptuous or condescending, but my appeal to my American friends is this. When you read something like this Sam Harris article, don't just nod in silent agreement and go on keeping quiet yourself. Start shouting, to encourage the others. I am hard at work on my own book, The God Delusion, for precisely this reason.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins at August 3, 2005 03:21 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/coming-out-against-religi_b_5137.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

329. That's actually a response to an earlier article by Harris

back in August, about 'Intelligent Design' and politics.

The Politics of Ignorance

[beam me up scottie]

330. Excerpt from that article:

It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality. Likewise, Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "non-overlapping magisteria" served only the religious dogmatists who realize, quite rightly, that there is only one magisterium. Whether a person is religious or secular, there is nothing more sacred than the facts. Either Jesus was born of a virgin, or he wasn't; either there is a God who despises homosexuals, or there isn't. It is time that sane human beings agreed on the standards of evidence necessary to substantiate truth-claims of this sort. The issue is not, as ID advocates allege, whether science can "rule out" the existence of the biblical God. There are an infinite number of ludicrous ideas that science could not "rule out," but which no sensible person would entertain. The issue is whether there is any good reason to believe the sorts of things that religious dogmatists believe -- that God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings; that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception (and, therefore, that blastocysts are the moral equivalents of persons); etc. There simply is no good reason to believe such things, and scientists should stop hiding their light under a bushel and make this emphatically obvious to everyone.

Imagine President Bush addressing the National Prayer Breakfast in these terms: "Behind all of life and all history there is a dedication and a purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful Zeus." Imagine his speech to Congress containing the sentence "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that Apollo is not neutral between them." Clearly, the commonplaces of language conceal the vacuity and strangeness of many of our beliefs. Our president regularly speaks in phrases appropriate to the fourteenth century, and no one seems inclined to find out what words like "God" and "crusade" and "wonder-working power" mean to him. Not only do we still eat the offal of the ancient world; we are positively smug about it. Garry Wills has noted that the Bush White House "is currently honeycombed with prayer groups and Bible study cells, like a whited monastery." This should trouble us as much as it troubles the fanatics of the Muslim world.

The only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts. Only openness to evidence and argument will secure a common world for us. Nothing guarantees that reasonable people will agree about everything, of course, but the unreasonable are certain to be divided by their dogmas. It is time we recognized that this spirit of mutual inquiry, which is the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith.

Sam Harris doesn't exactly handle religious faith with kid gloves, but when you have an entire administration and their backers trying to shove their dogma down our throats, you'd have to be an idiot to think you can reason with them.

[The Magistrate]

333. Locking

Flame-War