I can’t be the only one who finds strident atheists like Sam Harris as annoying and dogmatic as their religious fundamentalist counterparts. Its people like that who alienate the mushy religious-nonreligious middle like myself.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Alienate or educate? The people who should hear the truth, even if it’s ugly, is the moderates. The extremists are lost.
I’m sorry to hear you say that.
I have heard/read a lot of criticism of Dawkins/Dennet/Harris and other outspoken atheists. If their vocal atheism is inappropriate, how should they be expressing themselves? Should atheist just keep their mouths shut in public? Almost every Christian I have ever meet, with the exception of a few universalists, believes that it is right and proper for me to be tortured for all eternity. That seems like a clear case of dogmatic divisiveness.
Also, could you please explain what you mean by dogmatic? What dogma or creed is Harris insisting upon? Atheism is not a dogma–any more than not believing in ghosts is a dogma. It’s just an absence of belief. Is his criticism of religious moderates dogmatism? How? One can certainly disagree with Harris, but that doesn’t make him dogmatic. Is his attachment to empiricism dogmatic? If so, why is that bad? I don’t believe that Harris is the counterpart of religious fundamentalists.
Sounds a lot like the sensible moderates who can’t stand those shrill angry leftists, who are just as bad as their right wing counterparts.
It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe. I’m all for shutting down the actions of extremists, but attacking people’s faith will just empower the craziest elements. I happen to be more or less agnostic myself.
Take it from me, it also empowers (and enrages) the non – crazy elements.
BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while.
BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while
Do you have any good substitutes warmed up and ready?
Anything both accurate and appropriate will do nicely…
Morality and spirituality (as sense of something greater than oneself) has nothing to do with spooks or magic. Religion is providing the veil for islamic and xtian extremists to make life as miserable as possible for the rest of us. I’m sick of it. The only assholes here are the religious ones and they are stupid too.
“It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe.”
Why else would you call someone stupid? If someone believed 2+2=5, you would call them stupid. If someone believed Bush was a good president, you would call them stupid. Why is being stupid about religion protected?
Here’s the thing, religious people use much, much worse words to describe people who don’t believe in their religion. It’s like demanding gays be tolerant of those trying to strip them of rights.
I don’t think it is accurate to write that Harris is telling people that they are stupid because of what they believe. Harris seems quite interested in spiritual experiences. I am at work, so I don’t have my bookmarks handy, but check out the Point of Inquiry podcasts. If I remember right, they are produced by the Center for Inquiry, a pro-skepticism group. Anyway, they have several interviews with Harris. He repeatedly acknowledges the reality and power of religious experiences, but he doesn’t think they are the result of a supernatural diety. Harris does say that theists don’t have good, that is emperical, reasons to be theists.
Saying “You are mistaken about the cause of your spiritual experience,” or saying “You lack emperical evidence for your claims,” is not calling someone stupid.
The far right folks are already REALLY agitated, and their goals seem to be antithetical to those of liberals/progessives or whatever label you prefer. As C.S. Strowbridge points out, the religious right in America is also enraged by the GLBT community, as well as African Americans, immigrants, feminists, rock music…. It seems like an endless list.
I am curious who here has read anything by Harris, or listened to him speak at any length.
I don’t know about all atheists, but Dawkins strikes me as having the same brand of arrogance as some religionists. This attitude of “I’m absolutely right and you’re stupid for not seeing reality the way I do” mentality exists in both.
`Saying “You are mistaken about the cause of your spiritual experience,” or saying “You lack emperical evidence for your claims,” is not calling someone stupid.’
That would be fine if that was as far as it went. But Harris and Dawkins are not above impuning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them. And this whole canard that “moderate” believers grant cover to the extremists is as offensive as it is sophomoric.
Moderates grant cover to the extent that they demand that religion be exempt from criticism. How is that offensive or sophomoric? How is it sophomoric or offensive to not accept “I have faith that X is true” as a valid argument for X? Faith, and the idead that faith is evidence of anything, is what unites moderates and fundamentalists.
I grant that Harris and Dawkins can be rude or abrasive. But what’s the worst they do? They say and write publicly that people who think faith is a valid argument for anything are fools. What do Christians, including the moderates, say about everyone who disagrees with them? That they are deserving of eternal torment and they are going to get it. Carlton Pierson and other universalists are the only exception I can think of. That seems far more offensive than saying you think someone is a fool.
Whoops. I meant Carlton Pearson.
OK, Oliver, but you know Superman isn’t real, right?
John keeps on nailing it with every post.
Why make excuses for what these religions, and the 3 monotheistic ones in particular, are really about? Dawkins and Harris are not going to let people cherrypick the tenets of their religion.
I’m thinking that the human tendency to believe in the supernatural has, up until now, been a trait that has benefited human survival but has now become a liability.
For all you dipshits who believe in the concept in heaven and hell I have a question fot you. On judgement day will you stand by and do nothing while those you love are cast in the lake of fire for all eternity?
Christmas is not under siege. Christianity is not under siege.
Science and Evolution and Global Warming and Our Democracy and Separation of Church and State and Keeping Religion out of our Armed Forces — They are all under siege. By the Christists.
Fuck Christists. Go Dawkins. Thank you for providing a strong rational uncompromising voice to counter the darkness.
Harris isn’t advocating anything like what Falwell et aliqui advocate — an anti-theocracy, a la Joe Stalin. He also has no power in our society, unlike Falwell. Same story with Dawkins. Same story with the late Stephen Jay Gould. Though checking Wikipedia, Harris does strike me as an ass as well …
I do wonder if Harris is a “convert” to atheism, so to speak. Point of clarification: I was one of two atheists in the office where I work until recently (the other got a promotion to a different location). While I, who have always been an atheist, even as young as six, was more open about this fact, I was not in-your-face with religious coworkers, while my friend, who came from a religious background, was. The converted tend to have more zeal.
I would still like to know what would be an acceptable way for atheists to participate in the public forum. What kind of criticism of religious belief would be acceptable?
I also want to ask by Southern Quaker a question. I guess from your handle that you are a Quaker. Do you believe that I should go to hell? If so, shouldn’t I find that offensive?
Well Oliver, I used to enjoy your blog, but I have now deleted the bookmark from my browser. I wouldn’t have thought you’d be one of those people that believes religion should be protected from rational criticism, but there it is. Why anyone would ever define as “moderate” the belief that a big sky daddy created the universe just for us, I have no idea.
fd10801 | Dec 21, 2006 6:09:38 PM
“BTW, I think it’s about time we put the use of the word “crazy” on suspension for a while.”
Frank, it’s crazy to think that anything you suggest is worthwhile.
Just because millions of people believe in God, and the belief is central to their own self-image and understanding of the world, and they find any criticism or mocking of their belief threatening, doesn’t mean it’s not a very silly belief.
Why is it not possible for you to disagree with it, and not believe it yourself, without deriding it as “silly”? By any random definition any religion can be defined as silly, also so to can the lack of religion be described as “silly”. But we’d all get much further in the world by not injecting that kind of vitriol into our discourse.
As everyone knows, I hate the extreme religious right and the “values” it pushes. But on the other hand while they have a lot of power (especially under this president), they represent a very small percentage of people. Ditto for their fundamentalist dopplegangers in the Middle East (why, exactly do we not see a lot of the hardcore atheist folks hitting on Islam?).
Certainly how one grew up and how you deal with religion in your life colors how you view these issues. I happen to have grown up with a very religious parent, who also happens to be to the extreme left of me and thinks I’m some kind of Republican. Myself, I happen to believe that nothing in the Universe happens without a reason. Whether that reason is God, Yahweh, Allah or Jessica Alba – I do not know, but I am not so full of my own belief that I’m willing to condemn someone else’s belief. Frankly I think it would be hilarious after all this hubub between Jews, Christians and Muslims that the first thing we see on the other side is Buddah’s big belly.
For me, what I have seen so far of him, Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson, etc. Ready to condemn everyone who doesn’t follow their specific path, marking anyone who doesn’t follow the One True Way as a heathen. Life is too short for that kind of thing. Why can’t people just have their own beliefs without also having a pissing contest over who’s religion (and for these guys, atheism IS a religion) is better?
For all you dipshits who believe in the concept in heaven and hell I have a question fot you. On judgement day will you stand by and do nothing while those you love are cast in the lake of fire for all eternity?
I don’t know if I believe in the traditional concepts of heaven and hell, but I tend to believe that when you die where you spend the next life depends on the kind of person you were here. What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife? I sure as heck wouldn’t stand by and let my loved ones be hurt in the afterlife, but then it probably isn’t up to me but God/Karma/Buddah/Allah/Yahweh/Marilyn Monroe.
“For me, what I have seen so far of him, Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson, etc.”
It’s not even close.
Dawkins: “You believe in a invisible man in the sky. You are a moron. I feel the same way about people who make decisions based on their birth sign. Or tried to treat their ezema with a crystal.”
Falwell: “You don’t believe in the same invisible man in the sky. Or, for that matter, you do believe in the same invisible sky but celebrate him in a slightly different way. Therefore, you are evil. Evil, evil, evil, and deserve to burn in hell forever. And that’s where you are going to gay. Ha ha ha!”
Anyone who challenges long-held beliefs, deeply embedded in the dominant culture, is going to irritate people.
Russell’s Teapot
Dawkins and Co. are just the atheistic versions of Falwell, Robertson.
Oliver – How exactly are Dawkins and Co. condemning religious people? They may find them silly and simplistic, but true condemnation is the preferred tool of the true believers. Falwell, I’m sure, believes and hopes that Dawkins and Harris will spend eternity in the fires of hell. Not quite the same as wishing someone would examine their belief system.
Life is too short not to question every firmly held belief. That some people are offended by this just goes to prove how tenuous those beliefs must be.
It’s telling someone they’re stupid because of what they believe.
I’ve listened to Harris speak at length and never heard him call anyone stupid for their beliefs.
His main point is basically this: It’s time to stop giving religoids a free ride. Answering “because it’s God’s way” or “The Bible says so” just isn’t a good enough argument for anything.
John – I’ve listened to Harris at length on a SALT podcast, and he does seem to have an affection for Zen and meditation, which I do as well. I haven’t read his book yet (I live outside the U.S. and don’t get much non-fiction without a struggle and fortune).
Personally, I’m much more of the type that will blow someone off when they make a judgement based purely on superstition or supernatural, unprovable nonsense. I agree that the free ride should be over for theists.
If that bothers a believer, that’s their problem. It’s their “personal” relationship, after all. Why should my opinion matter? Plus, face it, 99% of the “believers” in the world are extremely hypocritical on a daily basis.
–WKW
C.S.Strowbridge : I don’t know if you have misquoted (misinterpreted) Dawkins & Co. (I hope so), but you have certainly misinterpreted the average born again Christian.
There is such a wealth of misinformation about Christianity (in all its forms), and other religions in this thread that I don’t know where to start.
Perhaps the most preposterous concept was this one:
First of all, what would you do? Write a stern letter to the Times? Picket the Pearly Gates?
Secondly, Jesus Christ Himself said:
It’s comical to read you amateurs (this includes that moron Dawkins, who seems presumptuous enough to pontificate as if he invented agnosticism and or atheism) trying to sound serious about a topic with which you are so blazingly unfamiliar.
The only person who said anything sensible (quelle surprise!) is Mr. Powell:
Oliver: What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife?
This is one major reason that religion persists. Most people, it seems, have trouble accepting that “bad” people will not be punished and that “good” people will not receive some sort of reward. Who wants to think that when their time comes, they are going to end up in the same place as Jeffrey Dahmer?
Ultimately, religion only serves to cheapen human life. It removes any real responsibility for one’s actions. It may have served a purpose a thousand years ago, but today, it is superfluous, at best.
At the same time, though, I’m not sure how effective Dawkins and Harris and the “new breed” of atheists are. It’s rude to call someone stupid, or a fool, even if that’s what they are, so a lot of potential converts will instinctively shut them out.
fd10801,
It’s nice to see that you’ve taken up the role of pompous dickweed in Pedro’s absence.
nihilistic_disintegration, I was going to respond to fd10801, but your post said all that was needed.
fd,
I’ll admit I’m just an amatuer, but to me Matt 19:29 sounds like just another variation on the 72-virgins theme.
“What’s the purpose of humanity if Hitler and Martin Luther King are going to the same afterlife?”
I like to make two more points here:
The first point is simple. Why does there have to be a purpose? I don’t need to believe God has a master plan for me to get out of bed and go to work every day. You may want life to have a purpose, but that doesn’t matter. I want the Canucks to win the Stanley Cup. I’ve accepted that won’t happen this year. That doesn’t mean I won’t cheer the team every game and be bummed out when they miss the playoffs.
Secondly, if there is no afterlife, no judgement day, etc., then it means you have to fight for justice in this life.
Have you ever seen Red Dwart? The episode where Kryton’s replacement shows up. Robot Heaven was a concept created by humans to make sure the robots, (i.e. Slaves), did what they were told. The would gladly be slaves now because they would be rewarded for eternity. The thing is, the humans and the robots each thought the other’s heaven was a lie; just something made up to keep the other side from goign crazy.
On a side note, I also find the concept of karma to be equally dangerous.
The last time I saw Dawkins on TV he was talking to Haggard (you know, the gay meth head), and Haggard was throwing a tantrum in the car park. Dawkins also told the story of a professor who had, through his entire career, held an opinion as fact. A new researcher took up the reins, and, in one lecture, not only disproved the professor’s pet theories, but advanced newer (and more plausible) ones. Far from being upset, the professor shook the guy by the hand and thanked him for advancing everyone in their chosen field of research. This is how Dawkins feels. If someone could prove, with empirical evidence, Intelligent Design, for instance, he would back down on his criticism of creationism over Darwin.
John, et al:
You make the same mistake Dawkins does in conflating religious fundamentalism with all of Christianity, by, for example, equating my moniker with some kind of fundamentalist ideology which sends anyone I disagree with straight to hell. You obviously know next to nothing about Quakerism.
It is a sophomoric to say that any person of faith grants cover to the extremists because it is an argument ad absurdum. Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then? Does democracy “grant cover” to facism? Should we condemn ALL political philosophy on the basis of mistakes made in the name of communism and facism? (which have done at least as much harm, and not nearly as much good, as religion in the last century)
Further, I’m quite fed up with this argument that religion is somehow beyond criticism in public life. Sure, a small group of fundamentalist may make a bunch of noise when you criticize them, but I have yet to see anyone arrested for promoting atheism in this country. And again it ignores the countless times that people of faith HAVE condemned extremism and violence.
It seems to me that atheists are just as guilty of this as people of faith. Dawkins or Harris makes a argument full of holes, someone points out the fallacies in their logic, and atheists scream about how intolerant religious believers are. If you want to have a serious debate about this issue, then you have to let your opponents rebut your arguments. That is how debate works.
I don’t think religious belief persists because we want “bad people punished” or we are afraid of dying, or any of the other absurd arguments Harris puts forth.
In my experience (having this debate on a number of boards) I don’t think that atheists truly understand what faith is. Most seem to equate sprititual faith with belief in the Easter Bunny or FSM, and think that the purpose of faith is to make us less afraid, or give us a big, mean ol’ father figure to push us around.
This is a very simplistic understanding of religion and faith (which is one of my big problems with Dawkins) and seems to be based solely on an interpretation of the behavior of a certain vocal minority of believers.
If you want to understand faith you need to study it beyond just reading Dawkins, Dennett, or Harris. And beyond assuming everything Jerry Falwell says is shared by all people of faith.
THEN you can start criticizing it and have my full attention. In the meantime I’m going to continue to argue that you are being simplistic and sophomoric.
“Secondly, if there is no afterlife, no judgement day, etc., then it means you have to fight for justice in this life. ”
yeah, because Gandhi, MLKJ, and Schweitzer were all such slackers.
As the severed head of Henry Kissinger said on Futurama:
“This is not a productive area of discussion.”
As usual, an internet debate about atheism has deteriorated to “atheism is a religion” and “Stalin was an atheist.”
Southern Quaker, what the hell does this mean:
‘Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then?’
Forget everything else I have said. WHAT does that mean? Is it some sort of attempt at sarcasm? Are you saying that the moderates grant cover to fundies position is as ludicrous as the Tolstoy/Steele connection?
You win. I am really a 13 year old atheist jerk. You are stupid. I impugn your intelligence.
‘Does Leo Tolstoy “grant cover” to Danielle Steele, then?’
Maybe I’m just an old irritable fart, but our host Mr. Willis ended this thread with his violation of Godwin’s Law. Double extra bonus points for doing it during a discussion of atheism.
Finally, lest we forget, the civil rights movement in this country was led largely by people of faith. So, if religion has “outlived its usefulness” it seems to have happened just within the last 30 years or so.
Do most Christians believe literally in the immaculate conception and virgin birth? The resurrection? Heaven and hell? My guess is that in this country they do. I apologize if I’m being rude with this but I think if you view the Christian story as anything but allegorical you’re being more than a little irrational. I don’t know at what point a Christian crosses over into fundamentalism, but a literal biblical interpertation, to me, is extraordinarily silly.
yes, John, that is exactly what I am saying. And yes, the Danielle Steele comment was meant to be sarcastic.
And nowhere did I equate stalinism with atheism. I simply pointed out that condeming all religion based on its extremist elements is equivalent to condeming all political philosophy based on its extremist elements.
Re-read my post. Nowhere did I equate atheism with stalinism.
My hunch is that Bull Connor (sp?) was a man of faith as well.
S.Quaker,
What is the purpose of your faith?
ND-
I believe that God exists (although quite frankly, not in a form that most fundamentalists would recognize) and I try to live my life in a manner consistent with my experience of God.
Note that I do not claim that an atheist cannot live a good life, or be an ethical human being. I happen to agree with much of what is criticized about fundamentlism.
I simply object to many of the simplistic arguments Dawkins and the like put forth in attacking ALL faith.
Ah… Nothing really speaks to the true meaning of Xmas quite like a fight about the prince of peace, does it?
While I’ll say that I respect Dawkins as a scientist, as a christian myself I do find his attitude towards religion somewhat abrasive, but I cant really challenge it too hard. His disdain for religion is, I would think, based on the attitude religious people have toward their own extremists, one where the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are allowed to brew their specialized brand of blind frothing hatred by the other “believers” who, though they may personally revile characters like Falwell, make no real effort to denounce them, saying to themselves “Well, he says he’s doing it in christs name, so I may not agree with that but I cant call it wrong.” If its not US Christians with Falwell its MidEast Muslims with Bin Laden, sure we dont like him, but we dare not oppose, a destructive attitude which can only thrive where people take no intrest in self-examination of their own faith and belief structure. The most charitable explanation I can give for fervent, aggresive, fundy atheists is that they’re trying to fight that specifically, and see the faith in whatever god is involved as the root cause. I dont precisely agree with it, not least of all because I do not share their belief, but can see the benefit of challenging the faith of people whos love of Christ has them permitting hate perpetrated in His name.
Very good post, Oliver.
If I say “I disagree with you” about an issue, any issue, then it can mean A) I think you’re wrong but I can see where you’re coming from and respectfully disagree with you, or B) you’re not just wrong, you’re crazy, you’re beyond the pale, you’ve abandoned honesty and reason.
Now, while B) may be an appropriate message for fundamentalists, it’s simply not appropriate for all religious believers everywhere. Like Southern Quaker suggested, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and MLK were not trivial, absurd, or contemptible people. (And I could add to that list Flannery O’Connor, Duke Ellington, Desmond Tutu, off the top of my head.) Atheists, of course, would be perfectly justified in sending a message like A) to such individuals, but — again paraphrasing Southern Quaker — it’s just sophomoric to dismiss all religion everywhere as utter trash.
Actually, I would argue that what unites reactionary fundies and devout atheists like Dawkins is that they’re much too quick to go to B), when A) would do. They can’t just disagree with people on their pet issues — they have to condemn them as utterly lost and wrong.
Hey, you know what I just realized? Many of the leaders of the civil rights movement were black! Can you believe it? I then had the epiphany that women were involved in the suffrage movement. I mean, honestly, what are the chances!
Next someone is going to tell me that Ghandi was Indian, or that Schweitzer was a doctor and adhered to the same hippocratic oath as all good physicians…meaning he swore an oath to Apollo, Aesculapius, and all the other Greek gods.
Ironically, Tolstoy does give cover to Danielle Steele in the sense that both are works of fiction and that if we tolerate one person’s lightweight turgid romantic drama, we must tolerate another’s literary epics, no matter how politically charged. At least that’s the case in democracies, but not fascist dictatorships, Sadly, over the past few years we have seen how democratic principles can be twisted all to easily toward authoritarianism. The idea that we must sacrifice our freedoms to save them, and whatnot. Oh the irony that democracies can enable fascism.
I personally find it much more interesting when books like Harry Potter are targeted for preaching some form of paganism or some such nonsense. How is it that there are people threatened by an obvious piece of fiction, acting as though somehow some impressionable members of society might actually come to adopt it as fact and form some sort of a cult around it. That’s just nuts.
The problem, in the end, is not that people have “faith.” It’s that many accept that “faith” as “fact.” That can lead to battles over Darwin, sexual preference, or what it means to be a patriotic American. It’s fairly well known that atheists are almost universally held as untrustworthy in the U.S. Is it any wonder that many are fed up with being told they are just as bad, if not worse, than those with real power and influence? Even Muslims can get elected to office, even if they have to endure the idiotic blather of the Christian far right.
More to the point, just how are the arguments put forth by Dawkins or Harris (or other outspoken atheists) extreme and where are the holes? Is it that they are blunt, or are they advocating stripping the rights from believers, i.e. preventing them from holding public office or denying them marital benefits? Is the problem here content or presentation?
Wonderful analysis of Sam Harris writing. As good as any I’ve read.
The answer to your question?
I wish you were.
You’re right, Muzza, you’re an amateur.
Let me make this clear for the theologically challenged: If one is “eligible” to go to Heaven, then they will no longer be concerned with earthly matters, including questions like, “What’s Hitler doing here?”, or “How did Teddy Kennedy (Edward Teller / Julius Caesar / Charlemagne / Caryl Chessman) get in?”
This also includes the famous question from the New Testament, “If one marries more than once on earth, who will his wife be in Heaven?”
Thus endeth the lesson for today.
Bill L: What would you expect?
Why would I believe something, but not believe that it is a fact?
Tell me one thing you believe that you don’t perceive of as a fact?
I believe it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said (I paraphrase), Understanding follows faith, faith doesn’t follow understanding.
What would be the point of faith, if it proceeded from scientific proof?
Apropos of the couple of SF references in this thread, Richard Dawkins married Lalla Ward (Romana Mk2), after she divorced her leading man Tom Baker.
Now Dawkins’ views make some sense =;-}
Here is a main point I see Harris making:
Religion plays much too big a role in society to avoid speaking about it out of respect for others’ beliefs.
If I don’t need to treat your politcial believes sacredly, why must I treat your religious beliefs the same? Why is speaking about the problems religion causes such a taboo?
That’s what must change, and is changing, whether people like it or not. Religion is on the table.
–WKW
And regardless of my opinion of fd10801, this line is pure brilliance and I may have to lift it in some form or other:
“What’s Hitler doing here?”
–WKW
Faith, by definition, is NOT fact. Believing something to be true doesn’t make it so. People are free to believe the world is flat, but no amount of faith will make it so. A good many people get the difference, and they hold their faith as something personal and don’t wield it as a bludgeon to bend others to their will. Unfortunately, as the study I linked to previously points out, that doesn’t prevent strong prejudices from creeping into their daily lives.
fd10801,
My amateur status was permanantly secured when I escaped the catholic church after having to only kiss the occasional ring. I guess I should count myself lucky. You go on playing God Said and contemplating WWJD. I’ll continue living my perfectly moral, reason-based life. Happy holidays.
Ah, yes, Muzza, the unreconstructed Cathoilc, confusing the small, creepy and dangerous world of Sister Mary Elephant with the intellectual round table that includes the like of Malcolm Muggeridge, C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton.
WKW: this line is pure brilliance and I may have to lift it in some form or other
I am more concerned that you understand the meaning of that question, than I am about royalties.
Bill L.: Believing something to be true doesn’t make it so
Shouldn’t that read, “[My]believing something to be true doesn’t make it so [for you]?”
I say that because there is no way that something I believe ceases to be true (for me), unless I cease to believe it.
Telling someone else that what I believe to be true is true is a far cry from wielding “it as a bludgeon to bend others to their will.”
I am more concerned that you understand the meaning of that question
Your beliefs and explanations of the supernatural are of no interest to me.
–WKW
Ranting arseholes are ranting arseholes no matter what they’re ranting about. I love Richard Dawkins, but I wish he’d put a cork in it once in a while. Man’s married to Lalla Ward, he should be a lot more content than he is.
First-time poster, although I’ve followed this blog for some time now.
Although it’s been alluded to several times now, I feel I have to reiterate that likening Harris and Dawkins to the Falwells and Robertsons of the world is a spectacularly flawed analogy. Yes, each camp is outspoken in its belief that they are correct in their worldview. However, that’s the end of the similarities. Harris and Dawkins, like all good scientists, require empirical evidence to acknowledge the existence of any physical phenomenon, whether that’s gravity, evolution, black holes, or God. Religious folk, REGARDLESS of their level of extremism, hold a belief that is decidedly irrational. What kind of reasonable person believes in something that has not the slightest shred of evidential support?
This is an important discussion because of the elevated status religion has in our culture. It greatly impacts our social and economic policies, and yet is something that cannot “politely” be questioned in public. For example, I personally alienated half my family by having the temerity to suggest to them that maybe God wasn’t the origin of life on Earth. The horror, the horror!…
Please, if you haven’t done so already, read The God Delusion by Dawkins.
fd10801,
Nice of you trivialize the rape altar boys. By hey, believers were able rationalize that one away for years.
Tell you what, I’ll see your Muggeridge, Lewis, and Chesterton and raise you a Sagan, Gould, and Hawking.
Oh, and fd… here’s the thing. Either God exists, or he doesn’t. It is not as though you believing he exists means anything in regard to the question of his actual existence. Likewise, some Christians’ firm belief in creationism as a reasonable explanation for biodiversity and human existence doesn’t make creationism any more true than if no one believed in it. The truth, by definition, is not subjective. Good science is also not subjective.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I have recently decided after years of ambivalence to “come out” as an atheist, and I’ll tell you why in 3 words.
Babies with cancer.
Religion is Man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable. but if I am expected to believe the myths of a miracle birth and resurrection from the dead, then how can I discount other myths and stories, like Icarus or Odesseus battling a Hydra? If you stand by the notion that one set of beleifs must be true, then you can’t say that others have no merit.
Al Pacino said it best in that awful Keanu Reeves movie;
“God is an absentee landlord!”
Mambochickhen23 is dead-on right.
We’re disagreeing on the definitions of truth, belief, fact, and opinion. No matter how strong the belief, it can’t, by definition, supplant fact and truth.
Sorry I wasn’t clear about the Stalin thing. I just meant that someone way up near the top of the thread had mentioned him. I apologize that I wasn’t clear in my post.
Nice of you trivialize the rape of altar boys
When did that happen?
Incidentally, if you were concerned about childhood sexual abuse, you should have been home schooled, since way more teachers abuse their students, than priests do their altar boys.
mambochicken23: I see exactly where you’re going — into quicksand.
No amount of science has ever disproved the existence of God, or Jesus, for that matter. In fact, the science of archeology and linguistics tend, however slowly and incrementally, point toward proving the verity of religious “truths” on a regular basis.
Duros62: If you stand by the notion that one set of beliefs must be true, then you can’t say that others have no merit.
Huh? Of course I can. If I believe that the Universe, and everything in it, is the result of the Will and Desire of an All – Knowing, All – Powerful, and Loving God (and I do), what else must I believe? That the Universe fell off the back of Dr. Who’s Tardis? Or was the result of Odin’s wrath?
WKW: Your beliefs and explanations of the supernatural are of no interest to me.
Ah, yes. The openmindedness of the modern liberal.
If you don’t understand the meaning of the words, then you are just echoing them, and, if you were possessed of any integrity, you would never quote them again without admitting a) that they were not original with you; and b) that you have no idea what they mean.
fd, please tell me you’re joking…
1) The reason that science has never disproved the existence of God is simple. The existence of God is not a testable hypothesis. What sorts of tests would YOU offer to demonstrate God’s existence?
2) You pompously presume that the burden of proof for God’s existence (or nonexistence)is on the atheists. It’s not. It’s more parsimonious to presume the absence of something, rather than the absence of something, given that there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Since there cannot be empirical evidence for or against the existence of God (see point #1), the law of parsimony (Occam’s Razor, Morgan’s Canon, whatever you want to call it) dictates that one presumes the negative.
For me to accept that a God exists, I’d have to be provided some empirical data that can only be accounted for by the existence of a deity. Otherwise, to paraphrase Professor Frink, a “God” might exist, but he’s a do-nothing, pointless entity whose strength to change the world is less than that of the tiniest ant. Certainly not the omnipotent father figure that he’s typically portrayed as.
Perhaps you were mistaken about who going into quicksand.
“Harris and Dawkins, like all good scientists, require empirical evidence to acknowledge the existence of any physical phenomenon, whether that’s gravity, evolution, black holes, or God. Religious folk, REGARDLESS of their level of extremism, hold a belief that is decidedly irrational. What kind of reasonable person believes in something that has not the slightest shred of evidential support?”
— mambochicken23
The question is, what COUNTS as evidential support? Atheism is a philosophical / theological stance, not a scientific one, and as such it’s not susceptible to scientific argumentation one way or the other.
A believer might say, Well, I know God exists because the orderly nature of the world indicates that it was created by a conscious, loving intelligence. Or, I know God exists because all the different major religions of the world point toward similar underlying transcendent truths, which shows an awareness of the same transcendent reality. Science can’t tell us squat about whether these are valid claims: whether the universe is in fact “orderly,” or whether perceived similarities between religions indicate that they all share a common awareness of a transcendent reality. These are philosophical not scientific questions.
Oh, btw, I never said that Jesus didn’t exist. Historical records indicate that Jesus probably did exist, sometime around 2000 years ago. What I question is his nature. He was simply a person, born to a mother who had had sex with a man. Was he a great man, a pacifier? Surely. Was he the Son of God? Surely not. To believe otherwise is to believe a fairy tale as fact.
ChristianPinko, see my post in response to fd. I think that your concerns are, at least somewhat, answered there.
crap.
supposed to read, “It’s more parsimonious to presume the absence of something, rather than the presence of something…”
fd10801,
The public school system I attended treated me just fine. Where I suspect I was exposed to the greatest risk was at the parochial school I attended for catechism. Although I never was, I know of others who were victimized by one of the priests.
I would love to see some data on your teacher vs. priest assertion. It’s my belief, which I acknowledge might not be proven factual or shown through research to be the truth, that a significantly higher percentage of priests sexual abuse children. I can’t recall hearing of cases in public school systems that have rivaled what went on in the Boston or Los Angeles archdioceses. But hey, I’ve got an open mind and will accept data that proves my position wrong.
Depending on your particular brand of religion, you may want to stay far, far away from geology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, or any number of scientific fields that have done irreparable damage to beliefs held dear by millions. Your only options will be to evolve, ignore, or sentence the heretics to death.
fd10801,
The public school system I attended treated me just fine. Where I suspect I was exposed to the greatest risk was at the parochial school I attended for catechism. Although I never was, I know of others who were victimized by one of the priests.
I would love to see some data on your teacher vs. priest assertion. It’s my belief, which I acknowledge might not be proven factual or shown through research to be the truth, that a significantly higher percentage of priests sexual abuse children. I can’t recall hearing of cases in public school systems that have rivaled what went on in the Boston or Los Angeles archdioceses. But hey, I’ve got an open mind and will accept data that proves my position wrong.
Depending on your particular brand of religion, you may want to stay far, far away from geology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, or any number of scientific fields that have done irreparable damage to beliefs held dear by millions. Your only options will be to evolve, ignore, or sentence the heretics to death.
Sorry about the double post. (Damn you to hell dial-up, damn you to hell.)
First major disagreement I’ve had with you, Oliver. I for one am delighted to see non-believers fighting back, and not mincing words.
These days you can be gay, you can be black, but you CANNOT be in politics and be openly atheist. Do you not see a problem with that?
Sure, and I’m not arguing that that is ok. Atheists should be as likely as anyone else to be elected for public office. The issue is with people claiming superiority while deriding others. Be they atheist or theist, its just as bad. Right now the theists are in control, but their mirrors don’t seem a whit better to me.
This is turning into a “dormitory bull session”, and I don’t get stoned anymore, so I have little to contribute.
There is more baloney flying around here than a friggin’ deli.
One guy says he felt safer in public school. He (of course) had no problems in Catholic school, but he “knows people” who did. Yeah, right.
I spent 8 years in Catholic school (grades 4 through 12) and I was not sexually abused, nor did I ever hear of anyone being sexually abused. I guess that means it never happened, right?
There are breakthroughs in cosmology, astronomy, and physics (particularly quantum physics) everyday, that point towards an intelligent maker of the universe.
Studies in archeology and linguistics tend to confirm the historical veracity of the figures, and their stories, in the Bible.
Here’s another example of where you atheists, and non – religionists go astray: Was He (Jesus) the Son of God? Surely not. To believe otherwise is to believe a fairy tale as fact.
Why “surely”? Why couldn’t He have been the Son of God? Because there is no God? Then we’re back we started. Because God had no son? Well, if you believe in God, and I do, then you can believe he “authored” the Bible, and I do. If you believe the Gospels are true, and I do, then since the Gospels say Jesus was the Son of God, then I suppose Jesus was the Son of God.
But since that all hinges on whether or not there is a God, that still takes us back to where we started.
So, let’s stick with the original topic, shall we?
Is any positive purpose served by an attitude like Mr. Harris’?
My answer would be, “No”.
Interestingly, while Mr. Harris suggests that the presence of disasters and catastrophes in the world disproves the existence of God, he inadvertently claims that if God is not beneficent as he defines it, then there can’t be a God.
How juvenile. “There can’t be a God, if I’m not happy.” What a selfish concept. Is there no lesson in perserverance? In hardship? In pain and suffering? Oh, no, says Mr. Harris, if we’re not all enjoying ourselves at all times, then there can’t be a God.
What a towering intellect! Such imagination! Hurricane Katrina proves there is no God… Child murder proves there is no God.
Perhaps Mr. Harris needs to read the Book of Job in the Bible to learn about suffering, misfortune and the Will of God, if, indeed, he is capable of understanding such things.
I recommend the same reading for all of you — especially you liberals, whether you are believers or not.
Frank, I’ll take your total non-response to my initial argument about the lack of parsimony re: God’ existence as a concession that I’m correct, even if it hurts you too much to admit it outright.
Your belief in God, and his authorship of the Bible, and the truth of the Gospels, etc. does not make them true. Please explain to everyone why the existence of the Christian God is more realistic/probable than the ancient Greeks’ pantheon of gods, or Zoroaster, or Vishnu, etc. Tangential to the original topic? Perhaps. But still quite interesting and informative.
It’s intellectually dishonest to frame Sam Harris’s position in the manner you did. There are a good many reasons for his stance, besides the world being a tough place. I also doubt he ever said that anything “disproves” the existence of God. Usually scientists don’t use words like that, especially when it comes to non-empirical issues. I think that he takes the same position I take: As there is no current evidence to suggest that God exists, then there is no reason to suppose that he does. If, tomorrow, Jesus himself were to come down from the clouds and start healing lepers, I’d be the first one in line to admit that I was wrong.
This is the positive purpose that Harris, Dawkins, etc. serve. I’d say that an infusion of reason and critical thinking skills into our society would be a very good thing. One barrier to that goal: people’s irrational religious beliefs.
(btw, Frank, I’d really like to see you address my points for once, rather than skipping around them with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears…)
“The issue is with people claiming superiority while deriding others. Be they atheist or theist, its just as bad.”
I have to disagree there. Opinions are only as valid as the evidence that back them up.
Think of it this way…
1.) Person A says 2+2=5 and anyone who thinks differently is a moron.
2.) Person B says 2+2=4, and has the math to back it up, and anyone who thinks differently is a moron.
Sure, they are both calling each other morons, but one has the evidence to back up the claim
And faith is the belief in something without evidence or indeed evidence to the contrary. And that’s stupid. You wouldn’t cross the street without evidence that is was safe, (especially if there was evidence to the contrary), but people make life decisions based on nothing more than faith. (And despite the unsubstantiated claims by fd10801, there is no evidence for any gods worshiped by man.)
It’s not intolerant to point that out just like it is not intolerant to correct someone’s math. In fact, many consider it is harmful to not correct someone if they are making a mistake that can be dangerous to them or others.
Personally, as long as your decisions don’t affect me, I don’t care. Someone think the trees in their yard are magical and won’t cut them down I don’t care. Unless they are old and could fall down during a storm damaging my property, then I would have an issue.
Oliver,
The arguement you’re employing here is the same the right used in trying to prove that recent congressional corruption cut both ways; at a certain
level technically accurate but entirely misleading once the details are considered. For every Harris and Dawkins there are thousands on the other side of the equation constantly attempting to foist their private views into the public arena. Once atheists are portayed equally in this society, once we’re not battling local school boards over the dumbing-down of science education, once we no longer have a commander-in-chief claiming that a war was green-lighted from above, then fine, call the likes of Harris and Dawkins out. But until, or if, we reach that point I don’t think a little hyperbole from the non-believers is such a bad thing.
fd10801,
Stoned, straight, or somewhere inbetween, you’re correct, you do have little to contribute. (Other than to show how pompous, irrational, and unfactual some true believers can be.) And please, stop trying to drag science into the equation to support your position. The thesis that, gee, it’s too darn complex to be anything but god really doesn’t cut it as science (see Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District.) If you can link to a peer reviewed study that concludes that the answer is god I’ll take look at it. But that would mean you would have to wade into the realm of unbiased facts and data, and my guess is you don’t do well there.
In the spirit of the season, and now that we know a little about your religious upbring, I was wondering if you’d be willing to take a shot at the whole virgin birth thing. What I believe, make that know, is that approximately 36-weeks prior to the birth of Christ Mary was off somewhere making the monster with two backs. During my catholic years the virgin thing was presented as fact. Maybe christians have had to concede that point; I don’t really keep up on these things any more. But a last question: where do you stand on the issue? Literal virgin birth – yes or no? My belief is that a majority of christians in this country still accept it as fact. And I find that, along with many other firmly held religious beliefs, more than a little scary.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, to prove the existence of God would negate faith, thus god would cease to exist. QED.
The law of parsimony … dictates that one presumes the negative.
Oh, really?
Secondly, I was not insisting that God existed, or that the Bible was true. I was merely framing the argument. (Notice the presence of multiple “if”’s — they were put there for a reason)
Third; in re: Sam Harris
Enough said on Mr. Harris
Fourth.
I have a better idea:
Person A thinks the whole entire Universe, from cosmic dust to Jessica Alba, came from out of nowhere, quite by accident, after millions of random events. Of course, there is no clear, indisputable evidence for this , as humans had no alphabet before about 4000 B.C. So no one could have observed anything that happened before that, and made a record of it. Person A calls everyone who doesn’t believe in his interpretation of geological and paleontological evidence a moron. He, of course, knows this is not true; he is just being elitist, condescending and derisive.
Person A believes that the world is orderly, as evidenced by biology; organized, as evidenced by botany, zoology and taxonomy; and composed mainly of people who struggle mightily to do good, despite the many temptations to do evil. All these, though “non – scientific”, can be termed “circumstantial evidence” that there is, indeed, a God. Person A calls no one a moron, as his conscience dictates that he should not, no matter what religious rites and rituals he practices.
Is Person A a better person than Person B?
Finally, I certainly do believe in the Virgin Birth. And contrary to your juvenile attempt at irreverence, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that Mary engaged in a sexual act.
After all, it wouldn’t be much of a miracle if Mary had sex, and then had her hymen restored, now would it?
It wouldn’t be much of a miracle if Mary went to sleep, dreamed of the Holy Ghost, and 28 days later, discovered that she had missed her period, now would it?
As a matter of fact, some biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Mother of Christ was predicted to be a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception, not that a virgin would conceive and still be a virgin. Then, of course, there would be no miracle at all.
I’m curious to know why the very fact that x amount of people believe in the Virgin Birth could scare someone.
A note on “dragging science into the argument”: Why would one oppose a statement regarding Intelligent Design (which, for the record, I had never made) with a legal decision :
What was the matter? Couldn’t find a scientist on the weekend?
Merry Christmas — Jesus is the reason for the season *
* That’s “Kat – lik” code for, “If you’re not a Catholic when you die, you will burn in eternal fire, while winged serpents tear at your flesh. Have a nice day.”
From the website, http://www.russellsteapot.com (I linked to it previously, but here’s the text without the doodles). The whole exchange takes place in from of an empty manger:
I have to disagree with you. The primary reason that I think atheists should be more assertive is that they are so shamelessly and viciously vilified by the more religious among us. Condemned to hell, without a moral base, faithlessly and evilly secular, on a path that leads inevitably to Stalinism on the one hand or Nazism on the other and a corrosive force against centuries of WESTERN CIVILIZATION are but a few of the elements in the diatribes that the religious heap upon atheists and agnostics. The conservative blogosphere rants about the wisdom of lining us atheists up against the wall and shooting us along with religious “liberals”. Religionists are on an long term offensive to gut the constitutional separation of church and state, to promote religious inculcation in schools and to vitiate valid scientific findings and theories. Beside what religious conservatives say about the unchurched, Dawkins and his like sound like choirboys.
Wow Frank, thanks for defining “parsimony” for me. I can see now that you’re right. The presence of God is certainly more likely than the absence. I concede.
//sarcasm off
Seriously, Frank, you’re hopeless. I’m pretty sure that you can see the strength of the atheist’s argument, and it scares the crap out of you, and so you shun it. That makes you the worst kind of theist: rather than be the type who simply doesn’t know any better, you actively ignore the evidence that suggests you’re wrong.
My god fd10801, you’re even more of a complete whack job than I had previously imagined. I don’t even know where to begin.
I do hope you’ve been extra good this year. Rumor has it that there’s a jolly fat man in a red suit who’ll bring you gifts come Monday if you’ve been behaving yourself. Maybe he’ll bring you new wheels for your goalposts. I mean if two thousand years ago a virgin could give birth I don’t see why there’s any reason to doubt that flying reindeer can’t travel several thousand miles per hour pulling a sleigh filled with gifts for all the good boys and girls. You just keep believing, son.
And feel free to skip church Monday; I don’t think it will hurt you at all.
Wow, atheists mocking a believer! Where have I heard that before. Yes, I am so uncertain in my beliefs that when you wise guys wise men questioned my beliefs, I ran cowering under my keyboard.
I have lived the kind of life where I feel as if I was directed towards a belief in God, after decades of nonbelief. You guys must be exceptionally immature to believe that people who believe in God are just “dumb”, and don’t get it.
It is obvious that your knowledge of theology and world religions is limited, if not non – existent. If anyone is dumb, and doesn’t “get it”, it is you.
I say that, not because I expect you to become Christians later today. I say that because your attempt to to intimidate, let alone, “convert” me, can never succeed, if you trot out the same old arguments, and I detect the fact that you know little or nothing about believers, what they believe, or why they believe it.
Think of it this way: Have you ever heard of Tuva?
It is very, very cold and its chief claim to fame is its throat singing. Yet, 308,000 people live there. They get up every day, and do their Tuvan thing. Some of them may not even know the United States exists. Does that “blink” us out of existence?
If someone comes along, and shows a ‘non – believing’ Tuvan maps, newpapers and videos to the effect that the United States exists, will that force him to believe? Nope.
But it would be way more convincing if someone came along and said, “Hey, Tuvan dudes! I’m from America. How’s it going?”
Well, some of us believe that the Son of God did that. Now, IF he already did that, and IF we believe it, why should we change our minds?
We can change our minds as to the significance of that revelation, as often as we change our socks (that’s why there are Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and Catholics and Baptists, and on and on).
But it’s too late for us to change our mind about the revelation.
Or, at least, there is nothing you have said so far in this thread that’s going to do it.
“I have a better idea:
Person A thinks the whole entire Universe, from cosmic dust to Jessica Alba, came from out of nowhere, quite by accident, after millions of random events.”
Nice strawman. Perhaps you could learn what atheists believe and debate that.
“Think of it this way: Have you ever heard of Tuva?
It is very, very cold and its chief claim to fame is its throat singing. Yet, 308,000 people live there. They get up every day, and do their Tuvan thing. Some of them may not even know the United States exists. Does that “blink” us out of existence?”
This is why religious people get called morons. There is independent, repeatable, verifiable evidence to back up the claim that the US exists. None of this is true for any god or gods.
Just buck up and say, “My religious belief if totally irrational, and I’m okay with that.” That’s what faith is, irrational beliefs. Stop trying to defend it with, ‘facts’ because it just makes you look more stupid.
fd,
I apologize if all this has come off as snarky. This should be the kind of thing where people can debate without feeling the need convert or demean their opponent.
My concerns with blind faith and literal bibical interpertations are many. Jonestown and Waco were filled with true belivers who paid the ultimate price for failing to sceptically step away. I’m sure the folks in their Nike sneakers and purple shrouds believed with all their hearts that the mothership was in orbit. I don’t expect you’ll make a case that their beliefs were supported by evidence or facts.
I know that modern, mainstream christianity shares little with the teachings of Jim Jones or David Koresch (sp.?), but at the same time a literal interpertation of the new testament does scare me. If you can believe fully in the virgin birth (as I’m sure many do) then I surmise that you’re also likely to believe in the literal version of Revelations. We have a president in this country who apparently believes in the end-time prophecies, that it was determined by god that he should occupy the office he holds, and consistantly uses phrases like good versus evil. He has the ability to expose us all to the consequences of his belief set. The worst that can be said about mine is that at times they result in me subjecting folks to cynical, wiseass rantings. But at the same time I won’t be spiking anyone’s kool aid, firing at ATF agents, or seeing the world in anything but shades of gray.
My religious belief is totally irrational, and I’m okay with that.
If by “irrational” you mean not subject to proof by the scientific method, as it is currently employed, then fine.
The important thing is not that it is “provable” by guys in white smocks at Stanford, but, rather, does it have any utility in our everyday affairs?
I would then challenge you: Is there anything in the world of science that contributes in any way to the conduct of human behavior? And, if religion does not, as Mr. Harris points out so forcefully above, then in what way are we bound?
Are we free to do whatever we want? Religion is “irrational” (not a bad thing in my book, but it is in yours), and science is non – committal.
I would say that that puts us all in very dangerous territory, where the strong are free to prey upon the weak without restraint (see what the Muslim majorities do to “infidel” minorities — which you blame on religion).
As my Africanist Geography Professor used to say, “After the colonial powers got through with the colonies, and some colonials went to University, they must have been puzzled. They must have wondered, ‘Are these the guys that brought us the Enlightenment?’”
Add together the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Soviet exterminations, the Nazi Holocaust, and the Communist Chinese murders, and I almost forgot the Japanese in Nanking, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and you’ve got quite a death toll for the “enlightened, rational” side of the field.
BTW, I’m rather glad we have a President who believes in good vs. evil, as opposed to a President who is not sure what the meaning of “is” is.
And, I, too, believe that God meant for George W. Bush to be President, just like I believe He meant for Bill Clinton to be President. Just like I believe He meant for 12 million people to die in the Holocaust, and 3,000 people to die on SEP 11 2001. Exactly why, I don’t know, but He certainly could have stopped it if he wanted to.
BTW: To the guy who wrote this :
What requires the Tuvan to believe any of that?
So the 500,000 deaths in Iraq don’t bother you (hey, it’s god’s will, carried out by god’s appointed servant – who are we to question or criticize) but a blow job raises your hackles? Seems to me your loving god, and you, have your priorities a bit askew.
Right, muzza, it was the blow job. The only thing worse than talking to someone like you’re an idiot, is talking to someone like they’re an idiot.
First of all, there have been nothing like 500,000 people killed in Iraq. It is amazing how the figure rises by the thousands every month when reported by the left, after the press reports no more than 300 to 600 per month.
And this with no terrorists ever being reported killed because that would be a — gasp! — body count.
Secondly, I didn’t kill anyone.
Third, we, and that means you, have no idea how many American lives were lost due to Pres. Clinton’s sexual addiction.
Following the bouncing ball — His troubles with Congress caused by his very real dalliance with Lewinsky (might have) caused him to take a casual attitude towards a very real, and growing threat from terrorism. His pulling out (no pun intended) of Somalia supposedly emboldened bin Laden, which led to 3,000 deaths on 9/11/01.
Still think it was “just a blowjob”?
Not to mention the fact that by using the left’s usual means of reckoning casualties when Republicans are in power, thousands of soldiers died in Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole, civilians in WTC ‘93 and the Kenyan embassies, when Pres. Clinton was in power.
You see, as long as you keep bringing up these tired old talking points, I’ll keep swatting them down like flies.
Did you ever hear of ABuzz?
It’s a message board that goes back to 2000. Yes, 2000. That’s how long I’ve been listening to these musty, dusty, pseudo – arguments from the Left.
They weren’t much then; they’re less now.
Oh, yeah — the people on ABuzz were considerably smarter than you guys. Not that it mattered.
Ouch, fd10801, your little girl slaps really sting!
Just curious, but is your ass all red and sore from all the unsubstantiated drivel you keep pulling from it? You question the 500,000, which came from a controversial Lancet study, I believe, but without attribution claim thousands of soilders killed during Clinton’s term. Please tell me you’re joking. You apparently have some computor skills, can type, and have a working vocabulary – you really can’t be this utterly stupid in all other matters, can you? I was thinking that maybe your dementia extended only to your religious beliefs. Now it’s obvious it engulfs your entire being. I can understand though why you stay safely wrapped in your cocoon; venturing outside to the real world would just expose you as the asshole you really are. But hey, god still loves you, right?
I am done with you. There is no sense debating with someone who long ago parted company with logic and who refuses to back their claims with facts. You are precisely the reason religious fundamentalists scare me so.
I feel dirty that this exchange has gone on as long as it has.
Muzza: Don’t you feel just as superior as all get out.
I am done with you.
You’re about six comments too late, for my taste. I wouldn’t care if you never touched the keyboard.
I feel dirty that this exchange has gone on as long as it has.
Awwww — poor muzza. Soiled by contact with a Xian.
Heh
Looka here — from 1991 to 2000
4352 casualties – measured the “Leftie way” if you died, you’re a war casualty…
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
And that’s during 8 years of “Peace”
Looka here — from 1991 to 2000
4352 casualties – measured the “Leftie way” if you died, you’re a war casualty…
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
And that’s during 8 years of “Peace”
Frank:
1) Thank you for finally admitting that your belief in God is irrational. You concede that there’s no reason based in reality for your religious belief. Awesome.
2) The usefulness of religion, on the level of human interaction, wasn’t really in debate. The feasibility of God’s existence was, whether he actually exists was. I disagree with you about the social implications of religious (and conversely, atheistic) thinking, but that debate is definitely more of opinion, and less of fact.
3) “What requires the Tuvan to believe any of that?”
Frank, you say you haven’t killed anyone. Keep bringing up these nuggets of wisdom, though, and we can add to the count, because you’re absolutely killing me. How about we bring the Tuvan to the U.S.? Yep, get him on a plane and show him that it exists. If he were not to believe it even then, with such strong evidence, then he’s obviously hopeless. If that was the case, he’d remind me of you. Question: Can you show me a photograph of Heaven? How about bringing me there for a long weekend?
4) Here’s a question: If God meant for Bush to be Pres, and Clinton to be Pres, and for the Holocaust to happen, etc… “Thy Will be done…” where is the room for human free will? If God is just going to do whatever he damn well pleases, what makes you think that any of your actions are truly your own, and not God’s work? How can there be good and evil if no one has the free will to choose between them?
You haven’t demonstrated to me why my arguments are flawed. I’d love to hear why.
An interesting analogy. You’re walking along the street, and you come to a large, closed, unmarked wooden box. Without picking it up or looking in it, are you more likely to assume that A) It’s empty, or B) there’s exactly one ham and cheese sandwich in it?
Clearly, you should be more likely to guess that it’s empty, rather than there being a ham and cheese sandwich on rye bread, with a little mayo. Anyone seriously choosing the latter option would be considered loony.
Frank, all theists, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrianists, etc think that there’s a ham and cheese sandwich in the box. They “know” that their God is the one true god, and that he exists, exactly in the form they imagine him. As you admit, without evidence. Well, they can’t ALL be right. The overwhelming likelihood is that there is NOT a ham and cheese sandwich in that box in the road, and the overwhelming likelihood is that the Christian God (e.g., the Trinity) doesn’t exist either.
Now you’ll say, “But there’s a good chance that there’s SOMETHING in that box on the road. Your argument is flawed for assuming it’s empty.”
No, my argument is exactly supported by this analogy. Sure, there could be something in the box… but for us to know what, we’d have to go and open it up, and take a look. Without seeing the contents ourself, it’s ludicrous and bucking probability to assume that any one particular object is in there.
The point: Sure, there might be some sort of deity. Or deities. Or no deities whatsoever. But without evidence for their existence, we cannot know its/their nature. Thusly, we cannot know what they intend for humanity, if anything at all. You might as well not worship any particular deity whatsoever, because you’re almost certainly wrong. After all, of all the billions of things that could be in that unmarked box on the road, what are the odds of it being exactly one ham and cheese sandwich?
If you don’t understand the meaning of the words, then you are just echoing them
Dude,you guys have been regurgitating the exact same message and story for centuries now. What, you have some amazing new theological discovery or view? Your cards have all been played, Science will constantly change
But feel free to echo more pagan rituals at everyone.
–WKW
Thanks for the link fd, it really supports your point. The killed by hostile action figures are especially telling. I’m sure you can make a strong case that the one death was directly related to Clinton’s extra-marital activities. Keep swatting away; you’re the Yao Ming debate.
If nothing else at least you’re consistent.
From bottom to top.
Muzza, you fell into my trap, you putz. I said, “Computing deaths the lefty way. If you’re dead, you died in combat.” Because that’s how it is being done in Iraq now — illness, suicide, accidents, all thrown in the death toll.
Step to the rear of the line, please.
WKW: The phrase you found to be pure brilliance was “What’s Hitler doing here [in Heaven]?” How many times have you heard that?
What does it mean?
How is it relevant to the comments before it?
Well?
Next.
Mambochicken: I have neither the energy nor the inclination to “prove” to you that God exists — that can’t be done. You can not prove to me that He does not, can you?
OK, the difference is that you want to “declare victory and go home” — I can’t prove there is a God, therefore there is no God.
Let’s say that instead of an unopened box, I am leaving a library with a book in my hand. You are walking in. You ask, “Are they open?” I say, “Yes, but I got the last book. There are none left.” You walk up to the Library doors, and they are locked. You say to me, “You got the last book?” I say, “Yes.”
What’s your next move?
Have I ‘proved’ the Library has no books? Of course not. Can you prove it does? Nope.
Shall we presume that because I have said something is true, it is true?
You are using “if – then” thinking, a type of thinking that permeates liberal thinking like white on rice.
“If you can not prove there IS a God, then there is NO God.”
Wrong.
If I cannot prove there IS a God, it is because that is beyond my capability to demonstrate, and your ability to be persuaded. [Here it takes BOTH]
If I were better at demonstrating it, OR you were more easily persuaded [here it takes EITHER] [are you following the Boolean algebra?], we would now both believe in God.
Next
Mambochicken takes an encore to ask this supposedly difficult question: If God meant for Bush to be Pres, and Clinton to be Pres, and for the Holocaust to happen, etc… where is the room for human free will?
First of all, it was BECAUSE of human free will that these things happened. I said quite clearly that He could have prevented them but He did not. He did not prevent them because the people effected by these things were meant to feel those effects. Here’s an example: You are a guard on the tower of a Concentration Camp. A prisoner attempts to escape. You have no idea who the prisoner is – he or she could be gay, a gypsy, a communist or a Jew.
You are under orders to shoot escaping prisoners. You shoot at the prisoner, and down he goes.
Have you sinned?
Whose will is it that the prisoner was shot? Yours? God’s?
The prisoner is paralyzed by the shot. Is that his will? Your will? God’s will?
The prisoner dies and goes to Heaven, where I assure you, he will spend more than a week.
Was that your will? The prisoner’s will? Or God’s will?
See you on campus, Sparky.
Finally, mambochicken, not understanding my qualification of “rational,” wants to declare victory and go home.
You want to use the definition of “irrational” that suggests that I am unreasonable, and perhaps insane, rather than the one I used, which was a method of collecting data which does not employ the scientific method, which is a precisely defined method with precisely defined steps.
We learn from the work of Guy Murchie, The Seven Mysteries of Life, that in a beehive in a meadow, will be found exactly one cell for each flower that will blossom the following spring. There is the irrational belief that the “bee gods” make sure sure each bee is fed, by seeing to it that each new bee has a flower to feed from. Then there is a nonrational belief that, we have not the foggiest notion what is going on. We don’t know how it happens, and we may never know. BUT the answer may be beyond our understanding, not “unreal” or “nonexistent.”
I leave you with this,
p.s. For an interesting point of view on the existence of God (my favorite, thought I no longer require one) is the principle of Mortimer Adler’s idea of “exnihilation”
Merry Christmas to one and all.
Many guys who enter A.A., say, “I stopped believing in God, because I didn’t want him to get me.”
Well, he won’t get you. He forgives the ignorant.
I’ll address your salient points, Frank. One, I’m not unable to be persuaded… as a scientist, if evidence comes to light that demonstrates God’s existance, I will personally apologize to you and every other Christian on the planet. Seriously, I’ll do a world tour. But as a scientist and a reasonable person, I refuse to accept anything on faith alone, or because some people thousands of years ago said that Christ was the Son of God, or because the Pope says something today. Give me numbers, give me evidence, give me an irrefutable logical argument, anything!
“You are using “if – then” thinking, a type of thinking that permeates liberal thinking like white on rice.”
Where on this thread have I espoused a political view? Are religious and political views unseparable at this point? If so, that makes me sad.
You continue to ignore my arguments from parsimony, my argument from analogy re: the unopened box in the road, the counterargument re: the disbelieving Tuvan. You (rather insanely) think that there’s some level of rationality that exists outside of the scientific method.
On a more personal note, rather than tackling the discussion fairly and in the spirit of debate, you instead become pompous and self-righteous, when you in fact have no rational reason to be so. You’re unreasonable, irrational, and an asshat to boot. Congratulations, and enjoy your combined Christian/pagan/secular holiday season.
I suppose you’d feel better if I said, “I’ve read what you’ve written, and I am convinced there is no God.”
Have you, indeed, convinced me there is no God?
Of course not.
You may have persuaded me that you do not believe there is a God. You have said (drearily) many times that I must convince you scientifically that God exists, and if I don’t (or can’t), He therefore doesn’t even exist.
I challenge you with the idea that truth can be determined outside the scientific method, and you judge me insane.
What’s next, burning me at the stake?
You have finally proved that while you and I may know what you’re talking about, you have no idea what I’m talking about.
In your eyes, that makes me insane.
That’s rational! That’s scientific!
I pity you.
Enjoy the football games tomorrow…
Yeah, Atheists. What a bunch of jerks for pointing out that it’s stupid to believe stupid things. I mean, sheesh! Why can’t they just shut up and not say things that are inconvenient to our moderate political movement?
Richard Dawkins? Don’t get me started! He mocked Ted Haggard on TV before it came out that Haggard was a jizz-drinkin’ meth-takin’ hypocrite, but he should have just left Haggard to be ‘outed’ by the moderate Democrats. After all, the moderate Democrats have done such a sterling job of keeping radical right-wing Christian dogma out of politics for the past 40 years…
Look: If you’re reading this ‘blog, the Christian right hates you. There is nothing you can do to change that, other than to become one of them. And rejecting the radicalism of outspoken atheists, who have every right to be outspoken, won’t change that. A single bit. At all. They won’t start loving you just because you’ve chosen to race towards a more moderate position. They’ll only start loving you when you adopt their hatred. Pretty ironic, no?
Basically: No one cares except the radical right-wingers. Seriously. No one gives a shit about your religious views in public life, even if you’re an atheist. That’s what liberalism *means.* It’s one of the more-than-two-centuries-old traditional values of the United States: Religious life is private.
Go ahead. Learn to be a liberal again. Quit kowtowing to the religious radicals.
And, Merry Christmas.
Enoch,you may be on to something… I find people who tell me what I ought to do annoying. After all, I was born and raised an American.
Although the Christian Right (we do all understand that they don’t include all conservatives, or all Christians, don’t we?) seems to be annoying, they certainly don’t have the power of a “stop that praying / trans fat eating / smoking / riding a motorcycle without a helmet.”
But born again Christians will go away; the gummint is relentless.
My point? I really fear the gummint WAY more than I do a bunch of born again Christians.
I’m an athiest and I find this guy to be obnoxious. Not believing doesn’t give you a right to go about badgering people that do (unless they’re trying to convert you).
“I would then challenge you: Is there anything in the world of science that contributes in any way to the conduct of human behavior?”
Yes. And the fact that you even had to ask that questions means you don’t know enough about the subject to debate it.
I’m an atheist. I denouce the holy spirit. I do not fear eternal punishment from a supreme being.
I am also a moral person by any reasonable definition of the word. (And before anyone asks, an unreasonable definition would include being a member of an organized as a prerequisite to being moral.) You don’t need to believe in and god to know that you should treat your fellow humans the way you want to be treated. I am moral because I have empathy and I know without rules civilization can not survive.
—===—
I really should stop coming back to this threat beccause for every post I read of your, I feel like I am getting dumber. A few hudred more and I might even reach your levelof mental retardation. I don’t mean this as an insult, but as an honest result of the evidence.
For example…
“Third, we, and that means you, have no idea how many American lives were lost due to Pres. Clinton’s sexual addiction.
Following the bouncing ball — His troubles with Congress caused by his very real dalliance with Lewinsky (might have) caused him to take a casual attitude towards a very real, and growing threat from terrorism. His pulling out (no pun intended) of Somalia supposedly emboldened bin Laden, which led to 3,000 deaths on 9/11/01.”
The REPUBLICANS demanded he pull out immediately after the Black Hawk Down incident. He stayed long enough for a relatively smooth transition. To blame Clinton for the results of that just proves how ignorant you are of reality.
This exchange reminds me of the immortal words of the great philosopher and minor-league catcher, Crash Davis:
“Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a fungo.”
Strowbridge :: By equating atheism with intelligence you have given both a bad name.
Why don’t you stop insulting me, save time and typing, and answer the question.
What has science contributed to morality?
You call yourself a moral person, and you may well be one. But you have not answered my question — “Is there anything in the world of science that contributes in any way to the conduct of human behavior?”
Before this turns into some pseudo – scientific bullshit, answer the question.
And I don’t care what you call me, Strowbridge. I have scientific evidence of how smart I am. And I have evidence in black and white of how amoral you are.
So have at it, bunky.
“Is there anything in the world of science that contributes in any way to the conduct of human behavior?”
Yes. It’s called sociology. If you want me to explain an entire branch of study to you in a single post, you are dumber that you present yourself.
“I have scientific evidence of how smart I am.”
I’ve seen none of this evidence.
“And I have evidence in black and white of how amoral you are.”
Just thought I should point out that lying gets you thrown in hell.
Strowbridge: Enough already. The flamefest is over.
fd10801: “the world is … composed mainly of people who struggle mightily to do good, despite the many temptations to do evil. All these, though “non – scientific”, can be termed “circumstantial evidence” that there is, indeed, a God.”
I don’t get this. You’re saying that the existence of people in the world trying to do “good” provides evidence of a god? I have to assume that you mean the Christian god (for what else would a Christian mean?). So when a young man in Norway burns down a church in a genuine effort to do “good” and please his gods (most notably Odin), that proves that the Christian god exists? Or did you mean “good” as defined by your Christian standards? Perhaps it is the existence of Christians that provides evidence of the Christian god.
Also, “I would then challenge you: Is there anything in the world of science that contributes in any way to the conduct of human behavior? And, if religion does not, as Mr. Harris points out so forcefully above, then in what way are we bound?”
This is my favorite of all bullshit Christian arguments. If we don’t believe in The God, then we’re all going to sink into a pit of chaos and society will crumble. Laughable, yet irritating in its persistence.
1) Do you have any evidence that religious people are more moral than non-religious? If you could provide a link, that would be nice.
2) Is the fear of divine retribution the only thread that holds our society together? Is that the only thing that keeps Christians from engaging in immoral acts?
3) If sins can be cleansed through confession, then what is to stop religious types from sinning?
As I said, the flamefest is over. See above.
If one of you has a question, assuming you want an answer, and not an opportunity to insult me, you can eMail me at fd10801@gmail.com
But, for the rest of you, “Stump the Believer” is over.
fd10801:
If you can’t answer the questions, just say so.
If I wanted to email you, I wouldn’t have posted here instead.
I didn’t say I can’t answer the questions.
For example: So when a young man in Norway burns down a church in a genuine effort to do “good” and please his gods (most notably Odin), that proves that the Christian god exists?
[Without doubt, the most foolish question on this thread]
from the BBC History of the Vikings:
It is questions like that, that have made me tire of this.
I repeat, anyone who is truly curious can eMail me. Trust me, I have no desire to convert anyone.
You see, I am not a real good Christian, and I don’t care if all of you go to hell.
[Without doubt, the most foolish question on this thread]
Yeeeaaahhh!!! I’m number one!
I’m not going to dispute the idiocy of the question, since it was based on one of your assertions.
“It is questions like that, that have made me tire of this.”
I was actually referring to the Black Metal movement of the 1990s, not the Vikings. Hypothetically, even, if the young man in question was acting in order to “do good” and please his gods, would that have offered proof of the Christian god, as you stated?
I’m not going to email you, because then everyone following the thread would lose out.
Feel free to drop the thread. I don’t have any interest in converting you, either. I just like to ask questions.
If I had known your question was that stupid, I wouldn’t even have answered it.
Whatever, dude. You’re the moron that stated that people trying to do good (even in the presence of evil) offered proof of your god’s existence.
“Enough already. The flamefest is over.”
Thank you for admitting defeat. You have willfully shown your position on this subject is based almost entirely in ignorance and have demonstrated an unability to back up the simpliest of claims.
N D and strowbridege:
How wonderful and moronic your final comments.
I am positively glowing.
You have shown yourselves to be arrogant, rude, ignorant and ill informed.
And now you attempt to boast.
No wonder Monotheism has lasted 60 plus centuries.
Look at the competition!
Oh, ouch! fd10801, please stop! You are destroying me with your awesome debating skills. The way you avoid answering questions by insulting people is too much for me to handle. I could never hope to overcome a tactic as cunning and dare I say Machiavellian as responding to a question by calling me “arrogant, rude, ignorant and ill informed.”
I guess you really showed me.
No wonder Monotheism has lasted 60-plus centuries, its followers never answer any questions about their beliefs.
Well played, fd10801. Well played.
I just pretended your argument was a box I found. Then I pretended there was nothing in it.
I think that’s parsimony, or something.
“You have shown yourselves to be arrogant, rude, ignorant and ill informed.”
You just described yourself perfectly.
You refuse to answer simple questions. You are convinced you are right when the facts have shown you are wrong. You have demonstrated you don’t understand science, the scientific method, atheism, polltics, etc. And your entire debating technique seems to rely on insults and vague questions.
Now, I like the insults part, nothing wrong with calling your oponent a douche. After all, it’s a fun word to say. Douche. Douche. Double douche. I think we can at least agree on that.
But you can’t insult someone is a psuedo-polite way and complain when someone responds with blunt force trauma. (Where I come from, these insults are called Timsults, good it for more details.)
(As for the vague questions, don’t ask them if you expect anything more than a vague answer. You want specifics, ask specific questions.)
Frank,
You can ridicule my arguments, but can’t refute them. A sure sign of a person with no working argument.
Have your fun, waste your Sunday mornings celebrating your false God. I’ll be over here with the reasonable people. You know, those of us who don’t believe anything just because it can’t be “disproven.” You know, you can’t disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster… by your logic, it must exist, right?
You’re a joke.
My favorite part was the “Timsult” part.
Relying for inspiration on a mythical character, eh?
Sounds a lot like…
Nah
It’s too easy.
You’ll be on the “other side” with the reasonable people, OK.
“My favorite part was the “Timsult” part.”
I noticed how you never bothered to refute it.
“Relying for inspiration on a mythical character, eh?
Sounds a lot like…
Nah
It’s too easy.”
There’s a huge difference between taking inspiration from fiction and believing that fiction is real. Aesop’s fables are all fictional but meant to teach life lessons.
Yup, Strowbridge, you have the sense of humor of an atheist.
“Yup, Strowbridge, you have the sense of humor of an atheist.”
You’ve said nothing that was funny. At least not intentionally so.
fd10801 | Jan 2, 2007 2:49:04 AM
“Yup, Strowbridge, you have the sense of humor of an atheist.”
What the fuck does this mean, Frank?
ENTER HERE
http://fghh.info/videoarhive.html
Some free videos:
http://fghh.info/img/27.jpg http://fghh.info/img/115.jpg
http://fghh.info/img/9.jpg http://fghh.info/img/117.jpg
http://fghh.info/img/100.jpg http://fghh.info/img/76.jpg
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are just as bigoted as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
All four used hate speech mind you; disguised as appropriate language. And I recommend “The Dawkins Delusion” a great book that aids in helping us realize what a nut he is.
Personally while living in Canada my philosophy has become let me believe what I want to believe and I’ll let you believe what you want to believe.
People have a tendency of attaching themselves to an ideology and then go crazy over it. For instance when maoism, a moralist philosophy, originally began as a good idea but later became a genocidal atheist militancy. That’s the way human history has always been.
My new credo is simple. Fuck atheism, fuck religion, fuck ideological supremicism