E.J. Dionne hits the nail right on the head. Yes, you are an atheist. Yes, the religious right has too much power. So, why do you have to be such an ass about it?
The new atheists — the best known are writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins — insist, as Harris puts it, that “certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.” That’s why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society.
…
The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious “moderates” who don’t fit their stereotypes.
Emphasis mine.
Sorry, but that is a load of crap.
The reason that atheists have become so strident is that we have spent the last 6 years watching fundamentalist take over their religions while the vast majority of moderates sat idly by and did NOTHING.
I am so sick of hearing people complain about atheists standing up for their rights to not have the government impose someone else’s religious and scientific hokum on them and their children.
If moderates want to stop having to listen to atheists complain, then they should get off their asses and take their religion back.
And if they are not willing to do that, then stand back, and we will handle it.
And another thing.
Take Dionne’s column and replace neo-atheists with anti-war lefties and religious moderates with sensible centrists.
Uncanny, isn’t it.
Marginalizing those that are willing to stick their neck out and stand up for what is right isn’t courageous. In this case, it’s just religious triangulation instead of political.
Don’t be the DLC of religious politics.
Davis Helms said it much better than I could have. As a not Catholic (it’s complicated)whose faith is important to him I’m appalled when I see these people who claim to be followers of Christ perverting His teachings for political power.
OW is right.
It always interest me that strident atheists always seem to be strident anti-Christian atheists. Makes one wonder if they are not really more anti-Christian than one who has a strong fundmentalist faith that God doesn’t exist.
Oliver, sorry to tell you, but there is no God.
What you call God is a projection of man.
God did not write the Bible. Man did.
You can believe in this God-shit all you want, it’s your Constitutional right. But please don’t force your beliefs on the rest of us.
True morality has literally nothing to do with religion. You can be a good, moral person without believing in God and you can also be an evil, war-mongering toad who believes that Jesus Christ is his personal Lord and Savior and who wages an unjust, immoral, and preemptive war on Iraq (see George W. Bush).
Belief in God (or in the faith that your “God” is the One True Way) is the source of much of the conflict and war in the world.
Me, I believe in the Golden Rule (which is a moral and not a religious choice).
As for God, think of Man’s Higher Self.
As for religion, fuck it. It’s a Big Lie that man tells to himself.
If you believe in God, and you believe one of the many stories circulating that claims to know His or Her will with us chattering lesser beings, then that’s for you. You keep that, you internalize it, and at the end of your life you will find out whether or not you were right.
If you believe there is NO higher power, and that NONE of the religions are correct–then that’s for you. beings, then that’s for you. You keep that, you internalize it, and at the end of your life you will find out whether or not you were right.
The problem on both sides is the constant proselytizing, attempts at conversion, and in far too many cases attempts at legislation.
Spirituality is a personal thing. I don’t owe you jack by way of agreement; if I decide I agree with your beliefs then I’ll come to that on my own, and the same if I decide your beliefs make no sense to me. Just back off.
[[Oliver, sorry to tell you, but there is no God.
What you call God is a projection of man.
God did not write the Bible. Man did.]]
Wow. How dogmatic.
From the article (quoting Dawkins) “certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one”.
It would seem to me that that is the bone of contention.
We have spent the last 6 years watching fundamentalist take over their religions
Not only is that not true, it is irrelevant. There is no logical imperative for nonbelievers to become more strident and dogmatic, even it were true.
I’m appalled when I see these people who claim to be followers of Christ perverting His teachings for political power
(In 25 words or less) Why?
How has that power been exerted over you? [You and Helms can both take a shot at that question]
SpiderJ: You do realize that some denominations incorporate into their beliefs a requirement to “spread the Word”? No matter what you think of that, atheists bear no such burden.
SpiderJ — Couldn’t agree with you more. To each his own.
One of my all-time favorite lines from movies is from Jean Renoir’s masterpiece, “Rules of the Game” — “Chacun a son raison.”
“Each person has his own reasons.”
To me, that is one of the truest, greatest lines in all of cinema or all of literature.
Think of it, that’s what gives us our individuality — our greatness as well as our weakness.
Iggy — Do you have prove otherwise?
“Wow, how dogmatic” seems like a weak, cowardly, and yes, “dogmatic” response.
Bow wow, Iggy. Or should I say, “Woof, woof, big boy?”
Iggy — Do you have proof otherwise?
“Wow, how dogmatic” seems like a weak, cowardly, and yes, “dogmatic” response.
Bow wow, Iggy. Or should I say, “Woof, woof, big boy?”
Iggy,
You’re kidding right?
Fundamentalist Bigotry Enshrined into law.
Biblical myth taught as science in public schools
Faith-based National Parks
Faith-based initiative = political payola
Evangelical Iraq War cheerleaders
That took like 2 minutes of googling. Imagine if I actually made an effort.
[["Wow, how dogmatic" seems like a weak, cowardly, and yes, "dogmatic" response.]]
It does? How on earth would any reasonable human being view “how dogmatic” as “weak, cowardly and dogmatic”? What in the world is “cowardly” about it? Or do you just think that piling up negative adjectives passes for argument?
[[Bow wow, Iggy. Or should I say, "Woof, woof, big boy?"]]
And then we have the senseless insult, demonstrating that atheists can be just as irrational in discussion as the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists.
[[Iggy -- Do you have proof otherwise?]]
Proof that atheism is wrong? Of COURSE not. What do you think I am? A dogmatic fundamentalist?
[["Wow, how dogmatic" seems like a weak, cowardly, and yes, "dogmatic" response.]]
It does? How on earth would any reasonable human being view “how dogmatic” as “weak, cowardly and dogmatic”? What in the world is “cowardly” about it? Or do you just think that piling up negative adjectives passes for argument?
[[Bow wow, Iggy. Or should I say, "Woof, woof, big boy?"]]
And then we have the senseless insult, demonstrating that atheists can be just as irrational in discussion as the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists.
[[Iggy -- Do you have proof otherwise?]]
Proof that atheism is wrong? Of COURSE not. You can’t prove a negative, genius. What do you think I am? A dogmatic fundamentalist? Like some Christians, some Muslims and some Atheists?
David: I’m not sure why your post was aimed at me. I didn’t say that fundamentalists hadn’t done lousy things. I think you probably were addressing fd10801.
You can’t prove a negative, so “proving” the non-existence of god(s) is a non starter.
In the absence of evidence, however, there is no reason to believe that the universe is ruled by invisible and omnipotent beings who never make their presence known and whose activities cannot be detected.
It is no coincidence that the right-wing consists of people who want to be told what to think, and that most fundamentalists are right-wingers. The strength of the right wing is that they do not question authority, and can be directed to act in unison, while the left wing is fragmented by the fact that most think for themselves and arrive at a multitude of conclusions, and are far more suspicious of authority.
Atheists like me are simply asking, “Show me some evidence that supports your belief over other religions.” And that simple request makes us pariahs.
It is ironic that “theology” is not only taught at the college level, but you can get a degree in it. Considering that it is a subject built from one unsupported assumption on top of another, there is no “there” there, but because of social pressure, this useless appendage gets academic respect.
There *was* a time in America when religous tolerance was more or less regarded as the norm. Then the neocons took over the Republican party, Muslim fanatics attacked New York, and everyone began waking up to danger of religious conflict - both domestic and international.
What atheists are saying is that religious conflict - warfare - will get worse, not better. There are SIX BILLION PEOPLE on this planet now, and there’s not enough good land, energy, and clean air for everyone. America is clearly not immune to attack, and rich as we are, we’re a Big Fat Target.
Instead of barking at atheists, people of faith would do well to step back and ask why their faiths are in conflict.
Hint: extradinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and lack of evidence leads to whatever interpretation you wish.
Iggy,
Straight up. You’re right, my apologies. fd10801….aimed right at you.
BTW, I’m not against religion or Christians in particular. I’m against any fascist attempt to control others through dogma.
As an example of my respect for true Christians, this guy is the kind of Catholic priest that I can definitely feel a human kinship with.
Iggy boy, you said that my personal belief that men (not God) wrote the Bible was somehow “dogmatic.”
Forgive me, but do you have any evidence that God (or any angels) wrote the Bible?
And, if so, in what language?
Religious behavior outside of a religious context would be considered mental illness. Why shouldn’t EVERYONE be anti-religious? Religion is for the weak and easily led. I don’t tolerate the religious because they don’t even acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that they might be wrong. My personal beliefs are that no one fucking knows, but given a choice between imaginary friends who use magic and science, I choose science.
[[In the absence of evidence, however, there is no reason to believe that the universe is ruled by invisible and omnipotent beings who never make their presence known and whose activities cannot be detected.]]
Correction: There is no reason that you, personally, consider acceptable, and they have never made their presence known to YOU, or in objectively measurable ways.
[[Iggy boy, you said that my personal belief that men (not God) wrote the Bible was somehow "dogmatic."]]
No, that is not what you said. You did not say, “It is my personal belief.” You made three as though they brooked no contradiction and were not personal beliefs.
[[Forgive me, but do you have any evidence that God (or any angels) wrote the Bible?]]
In the first place, even fundamentalists belief that human beings wrote the Bible, but that God inspired the human beings. And what, exactly, “inspiration” means and entails is a matter of disagreement and discussion. Those who think they actually took dictation are a pretty small minority, I think.
The original languages are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and I didn’t know that there was any disagreement about that.
[[Religious behavior outside of a religious context would be considered mental illness. Why shouldn't EVERYONE be anti-religious?]]
But doesn’t that leave you in the rather untenable position of believing that MOST human beings are mentally ill, and always have been? And isn’t that a rather nutty thing to believe?
There is no reason that you, personally, consider acceptable, and they have never made their presence known to YOU, or in objectively measurable ways.
Or to anyone else.
Show me the “measurements,” and describe the means by which these measurements can be replicated by anyone else, even an atheist, with the same results.
If your premise is correct, there would be only one religion. The fact that there are thousands of religions is a strong argument against it.
If Christianity is the “one true religion,” why is it divided into hundreds of factions? Why don’t Christians all believe the same thing?
DH: I asked, “How has that power been exerted over you?”
No need to find other people’s opinions, or isolated incidents that have taken place at different times, and may have been reversed.
No Googling required: “How has that power been exerted over you?”
So, Iggy, God “inspired” the human beings to write the Bible, but who did the “fact-checking”?
How do we know that the Bible is true, either literally or figuratively? Interesting stories, but what’s it all mean, Alfie? Should we kill our rivals to get their women or not?
Should we lead our lives 2 thousand years or more later according to the percepts of some desert nomads?
Atheists are becoming more “strident” for the same reason that “negroes” began to get more “uppity” in the 50’s and began referring to themselves as black or as African Americans. The same religious individuals who deliberately sought to crush civil rights for all minorities then are the same religious bigots who continue to do the same thing today, and we atheists are just another minority who are the object of their enmity. Immoral, satanic and faithless enemies of faith we are called. The very term, dogmatic atheist, is an oxymoron. We are simply those who deny that dogma has validity. We deny that you have to prostitute your mind to scripture to have a moral base. The religionists use the same tone of voice in the words “secular humanist” as they do when they say “child molester”. Dawkins is merely telling these jerks to put it where the sun don’t shine. Good on him.
[[There is no reason that you, personally, consider acceptable, and they have never made their presence known to YOU, or in objectively measurable ways.
Or to anyone else.]]
You just made a statement that you cannot POSSIBLY know to be true.
[[Show me the "measurements," and describe the means by which these measurements can be replicated by anyone else, even an atheist, with the same results.]]
Oh, God CAN’T be measured. You misunderstood. I didn’t say he couldn’t be measure by YOU - I said he couldn’t be measured objectively. Neither can lots of things, like (for instance) the quality of Shakespeare’s plays. It doesn’t mean that they don’t HAVE quality.
I said that no Gods have ever made their presence known to YOU. You cannot possibly know objectively whether a being has made its presence known to someone else.
And the fact that different people see this being differently simply means that there is a subjective component to it. Two different people may have totally different views of YOU - it doesn’t follow that you therefore don’t exist.
Like it or not, guy, you have a billion or so people claiming that they have some connection and experience of a Numinous Presence, and further, that this connection is something that gives them fulfillment and sense of completion. And you’re standing there with test tubes telling them that it can’t be because you can’t measure it. Really, why would they listen to that? What are you offering to replace that sense of connection, fulfillment and completion?
If you said your mother loved you, and I told you she didn’t because I couldn’t prove it and measure it, you’d laugh in my face. Whether you realize it or not, some atheist attacks on God seem like the same sort of thing to a religious person. Like a blind person offering opinions on sight. It isn’t that they’re provably wrong, it’s that they don’t seem to get it at all, or even understand it to the point where the arguments make sense.
And good on you, Retired Catholic. I particularly like your last words –
“The religionists use the same tone of voice in the words “secular humanist” as they do when they say “child molester”. Dawkins is merely telling these jerks to put it where the sun don’t shine. Good on him.”
“Atheists are becoming more “strident” for the same reason that “negroes” began to get more “uppity” in the 50’s and began referring to themselves as black or as African Americans.”
Exactly. Atheists are pissed off because we are the only group that doesn’t have a fucking hope of getting into power. Even moderate religious people think atheists are unfit to lead.
Look in a fucking dictionary under godless, guess what you’ll find. Wicked, evil, without morals. (I’m happy to report this is starting to change in some dictionaries, but that’s only cause we are so pissed off as a group.)
We’re fighing back and I’m damn glad we are. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we’ll be in the same place in society as, ‘the gays’ are now or ‘colored folk’ were in the 1960s.
Oh, sweet Jesus, Iggy is back.
Iggy my boy, believe whatever the fuck you want to, just don’t try to spread your particular brand of God-manure on the rest of us.
Oliver, why do you have to be such an ass when it comes to pointing out the bad things that neo-cons do?
Oh right, because you feel like you are dealing with an unreasonable, irrational group of people who are pushing an agenda.
Your crocodile tears over the mean neo-atheists are a joke.
What? Religion shoved down our throats in every aspect of life and we’re being “asses” about it when someone stands up? Oy, as some religious folks say.
Oh, God CAN’T be measured. You misunderstood. I didn’t say he couldn’t be measure by YOU - I said he couldn’t be measured objectively.
In that case, you have conceded my point.
Thank you.
What are you offering to replace that sense of connection, fulfillment and completion?
It’s not my job to supply fulfillment to anyone else and I don’t care whether you or anyone else is “fulfilled.” The universe without any deities is fulfilling by itself.
If you said your mother loved you, and I told you she didn’t because I couldn’t prove it and measure it, you’d laugh in my face.
Strawman. If I wanted to prove that my mom loved me, there is a lot of evidence in the form of letters, photographs, and actions on her part. Or YOU COULD ASK HER, and the answer would be the same no matter who is listening, which is the difference between a mother’s love and a deity.
1. Atheists aren’t being repressed like blacks, women, or any other minorities have been. It’s just insulting for you guys to say so.
2. Dawkins and Co. aren’t just asserting their own beliefs - which isn’t a problem - they’re also saying other people’s beliefs are invalid - that’s the same line Falwell uses.
3. Making absolute statements that God doesn’t exist is just as unprovable as saying he or she or it does. Why can’t you see that?
4. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the ills of the religious, I do it all the time. But by that same proxy I don’t condemn all religion because of one person or group of nutballs, ditto for atheism.
I find it curious that people who criticise fundamentalist christians are using the arguments of those same fundamentalist christians to object to people like Dawkins and Harris, to attack them publically for one statement or two or an out of context quote, to criticise their books when they clearly havent read them. This kind of thing is to be expected from the Fundie crowd, but its kind of ridiculous how far its spread into otherwise very nearly sane people.
… I don’t condemn all religion because of one person or group of nutballs, ditto for atheism.
Oh please, O-Dub, the only atheists you ever talk about are Harris and Dawkins and only in the negative contexts that other people use to turn, for instance, the word “Delusion” into a personal affront. The only time you talk about atheism is to condemn it for the sins of those two.
2. Dawkins and Co. aren’t just asserting their own beliefs - which isn’t a problem - they’re also saying other people’s beliefs are invalid - that’s the same line Falwell uses.
By definition, all religions claim to have the right answer and denounce all other beliefs as invalid. Adhering to a faith, as a moderate or as a fundamentalist, implicitly means that you believe that your religion is right and other people’s beliefs are wrong. Vocalizing this is simply stating the obvious, and is not being an ass as you suggest.
Challenging beliefs is a good thing because it forces people to think.
And I only have praise for the religious right, right?
Dawkins and Co. are asserting themselves as spokesmen for atheism when nobody else besides say Bill Maher is speaking up. As someone whose personal sympathies lean much more to the atheist side than the religious side I think its worth pointing out when I think someone is going to end up hurting atheists on a whole, who I’m essentially on the side of (without being one myself).
If it is a question of taste, then what tactics, besides reason and critical thinking, should atheists use to make their case?
I suppose we could make up a fantastic story that explained everything neatly. That approach does seem to be quite effective. (I hope you caught the irony)
Oliver, while I don’t agree with you “foursquare” here I agree with you more on this round than I did the last time you discussed Dawkins.
There are most nuances critiques to make of Dawkins than that he is so-called “dogmatic” or that he makes people uncomfortable. For example, his discussions of Christian doctrines shows his relative lack of sophistication in such matters. It’s not just an issue of moderates versus fundamentalists; it’s that different Christian (and non-Christian) groups have a different relationship to the text of the Bible itself.
Catholics for example don’t generally have a fit if you say that you are interpreting the Bible figuratively in certain contexts; they accept evolution, i.e. the Pope has said it’s OK to accept it. Protestants tend to focus more intensely on the details of the Christian Bible, but most are not fundamentalists or strict literalists. When Dawkins talks about, for example, the doctrine of sacrifices in blood, his superficial gloss looks like 1st semester, sophomore year.
In addition, he spent way too much time in The God Delusion talking about his jealousies over the Templeton Prize and who among his academic acquaintances was so horribly unjustly enriched by receiving that money. It made the book drag.
Many atheists actually respect the contributions of religious institutions to American and world civilization. Most are not worried particularly about “In God We Trust” on the cash, at least not enough to sue over it. Atheists by definition don’t worship Wotan, Thor or Frigg/Freyja, but they are not engaged in a freakfest to rename Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
The religious strife we’re seeing worldwide is the most visible of the growing pains as man struggles to shrug off the irrationality and hatred that so often accompany religious faith. It’s not new - it’s been going on for millenia. We’ve just got more powerful weapons and a bigger population now.
The question is whether we’ll survive the transition to rational spirituality.
And I only have praise for the religious right, right?
Not saying that, but if we’re going into tag-categories then I say again, The only times you talk about Atheism (a fairly incomplete list I think but its what was tagged) is basically to say “This guy’s such an ass.”
As far as I can tell the only way Dawkins and Harris are “hurting” atheism is by being portrayed as hateful dogmatic bigots by the very people who feign sympathy with their cause. Dawkins’ and Harris’ terrible horrible no good very bad books exposit at great lengths not just about the logical fallacies used to justify the existence for a God but discuss the sociological imperitives to believe in a God (in particular the bizarre Cargo Cult phenomenon) the psychological disconnects that all humanity experiences at one time or another that might explain the source of the idea and philosophical discussions on how Ethics are formed outside of a biblical context. But to hear anybody, ANYBODY talk about either of them you’d think they were “Mein Kampf II: Electric Bugaloo”, written on the dried peeled flesh of puppies using the blood of children as Ink. I, disagreeing with religions, have actually taken the damn time to read the Holy Bible, but the Fundies and their apologists will not have not are unable to just plain fucking Won’t read either Dawkins or Harris, and quote them out of context as proof of them being self-evidently wrong, such as Dionne does.
The hilarious bit of the article is just before the end, where Dionne (speaking on behalf of all religion everywhere) is basically saying “Oh sure alot of evil horrible things have been done for religious reasons, persecution, killings, etc., but theres also acts of charity and goodwill, which are bigger and more awesome! And why do these athiest anti-god mongers never tell you about all the Schools that are painted? We’re painting schools people! Schools! How awesome are we!!!”
fd10801, you said
I asked, “How has that power been exerted over you?”
No need to find other people’s opinions, or isolated incidents that have taken place at different times, and may have been reversed.
I’m not sure how whether I have personally been afflicted is relevant or not, but a wise man once told a story….
“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’”
Atheists, qua atheists, have never done a damn thing! They’ve never done anything wrong, because they’ve never done anything at all.
They are quite literally offensive because they do nothing but attack religion and belief in God [aside: Some of us believe those are two different things; we are not in the "I'm right, you're wrong" category described inaccurately above].
And, comparing atheists to gays and blacks? As my sainted mother used to say, “Getthehelloutaheah!”
I’m still waiting for someone to explains Dawkins’ belief that “”certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one”, quoted in Dionne’s article.
Did he or did he not say it? What exactly does it mean? Is there any evidence whatever to support it?
Which reminds me, “meaning”, “significance” and “importance” are all things that exist that cannot be measured or duplicated, but are all very real.
Atheists, qua atheists, have never done a damn thing! They’ve never done anything wrong, because they’ve never done anything at all.
Frank, you are an idiot.
fd10801,
Dude you are so right on!
What a bunch of pathetic losers!
Wikipedia List of Atheists
Dammit John!
Missed it by this much!
I’m still waiting for someone to explains Dawkins’ belief that “”certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one”, quoted in Dionne’s article.
Did he or did he not say it?
Actually no, unless Dawkins was quoting Harris’ book “The End of Faith.” The quote is misattributed.
What exactly does it mean? Is there any evidence whatever to support it?
And here we come to the fun part of providing the absent context that better elucidates the point and doesn’t just have Dawkins/Harris coming off as teh 3vul:
Harris’ point is that Belief that one religion/bible is True is belief that all others are Lies, and that such Lies and the people who believe them are personally dangerous. I dont actually have his book with me to show what his proof is, and I hate to say it’s self-evident, but off the top of my head, wars have been fought for Christ’s sake for chrissake.
I think the presumption that all of these horrors and worldwide strife is the product of religion is completley unproven BS. The greatest evil done in the history of mankind has been done by atheistic political extremists - not ‘fundies’.
I would not argue against, however, teh conclusion that extreme religious fundamentalists, extreme atheists and political extremists are all cut from the same cut of cloth.
This whole world is amde up of two groups of people: extremists and non-extremists.
The extremists ultimately resort to violence and sometimes mass violence because they are irrevocably convinced ‘only they’ can be right.
Atheists aren’t being repressed like blacks, women, or any other minorities have been. It’s just insulting for you guys to say so.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, Oliver. The non-religious in the US are taxed without representation, and those around the world are vilified, jailed, and murdered. I’m sorry, who was being insulting? Oh, you!
DH The devil can cite Scripture to suit his purpose…
atheists qua atheists
Calling someone an idiot, because you fail to understand the meaning of qua, kind of qualifies you as an … idiot, don’t you think?
For any point of view to gain a place in public debate, a certain amount of ‘extremism’ is required. Moderate statements have very little chance of overcoming the weight of conventional thinking.
And to compare atheists like Harris, who merely write books and say things, with the multi-billion dollar Christian Industry, which effectively controls one of the nation’s political parties, is just ridiculous.
Wrong again Frank. You are an idiot because you seem to believe that the achievements and accomplishments of those people were in no way related to their beliefs.
What am I thinking right now?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, Oliver. The non-religious in the US are taxed without representation, and those around the world are vilified, jailed, and murdered.
How can you say that “the non-religious in the US are taxed without representation”? And don’t even start with “churches are tax-exempt” because that’s a misdirection. What makes you believe that your non-interests (you don’t believe in anything but yourself, as I understand it) are not protected?
Exactly which “non-religious … around the world are vilified, jailed, and murdered”? And by whom?
I suspect that those very same people “vilify, jail and murder” members of other religions, as well.
If GOD has a chosen people, then GOD is a BIGOT.
From a bigoted GOD you get bigoted religion(s); practiced by bigoted people.
[the HAM story (Babylonian Talmud); Jesus and the Canaanite woman(Holy Bible)]
you seem to believe that the achievements and accomplishments of those people were in no way related to their beliefs
No, I know it… Unless they wrote about the evils of religion, or the benefits of atheism, they were not speaking or representing atheism.
Let me ask you a few simple questions:
How do atheists mourn their dead?
How do atheists comfort the afflicted?
What constitutes an atheist act of charity?
How do atheists help others in a way that is, in any way, significantly different from the way believers help others?
You need to start communicating ideas, and stop hurling insults. Perhaps you’ll have a shot at being heard as something beside a contrarian malcontent.
What am I thinking right now?
Not much, and not often enough.
The greatest evil done in the history of mankind has been done by atheistic political extremists - not ‘fundies’.
Such pre-9/11 thinking, you should be ashamed.
Hm… now you cant be talking about Adolf “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator” Hitler as an evil atheist extremist… and Stalin and Mao did squash existing religion, but it was in order to set themselves up as Gods, so I dont know that that counts as Atheism per se… Clarify please, Dugger, what exactly do you mean by saying Atheism is responsoble for the “greatest evil done in the history of mankind?”
fd10801: Non-religious US citizens in California’s 13th District are represented by Rep. Pete Stark. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd…that’s it. Period.
And don’t even start with “churches are tax-exempt” because that’s a misdirection.
Gosh. Okay, mom. I won’t “misdirect” you with my sneaky ways. I’ll ask you a question: is there a non-religious equivalent, in both scope and funding, to Bush’s faith-based initiatives?
What makes you believe that your non-interests (you don’t believe in anything but yourself, as I understand it) are not protected?
The key phrase you used in that sentence was as I understand it. What you know about me and my beliefs can be written in grease pencil (using large block letters) on the back of a postage stamp.
Exactly which “non-religious … around the world are vilified, jailed, and murdered”? And by whom?
You’re joking with that question, right? Move to Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Texas, and publicly proclaim that you are non-religious. But you might want to wear rock-proof clothing, and fire-proof your house.
I suspect that those very same people “vilify, jail and murder” members of other religions, as well.
Yes. And? Are you saying that because those who vilify, jail and murder do so to both the religious and non-religious; the plight of the non-religious is somehow less serious? Are you saying that the non-religious are somehow not deserving of the same protections? Wow! You could run for CONGRESS! Hint: try running from a southern state, and ALWAYS CARRY A FUCKING BIBLE. Retard.
A simple answer to all of your questions: however each person chooses. Atheism is not a belief system that tells you how to live your life.
To say that Dawkins and Harris are being “dogmatic” is inaccurate. That’s like saying that refusing to accept the validity of Intelligent Design makes one dogmatic. Insisting that reason and logic should prevail over superstition doesn’t make a person dogmatic, it makes them rational.
If someone stated flat out, “there is no Santa Clause,” are they being dogmatic? Not until there is actual evidence that he exists. Insisting that one’s belief is valid with no evidence to back it up is dogmatic. Insisting on the validity of the one rational conclusion that all available evidence points to is called deductive reasoning.
“1. Atheists aren’t being repressed like blacks, women, or any other minorities have been. It’s just insulting for you guys to say so.”
Here’s a quote for you…
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”
George Herbert Walker Bush
While there may not be an organized persecution of atheists by the government, they are certainly not treated as equal by the population at large.
“2. Dawkins and Co. aren’t just asserting their own beliefs - which isn’t a problem - they’re also saying other people’s beliefs are invalid - that’s the same line Falwell uses.”
Religion is irrational by the very definiion of the word. He’s just pointing that out.
“3. Making absolute statements that God doesn’t exist is just as unprovable as saying he or she or it does. Why can’t you see that?”
Prove to be Harry Potter isn’t real. I can’t prove it 100%, but I can point out who the author of the books are. Dawkins does the same thing. He doesn’t say there’s 100% chance that god(s) don’t exists, he just points out the ones we keep talking about are man made.
“4. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the ills of the religious, I do it all the time. But by that same proxy I don’t condemn all religion because of one person or group of nutballs, ditto for atheism.”
Except when the ills done by religion are because of religion. You see, people will do untold horror if they think their god told them to.
Adolf Hilter reads the bible and sees countless stories of genocide. Reads that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. Decides to kill the Jews in the name of Christ. Is that a problem with one guy, or with the religion?
is there a non-religious equivalent, in both scope and funding, to Bush’s faith-based initiatives?
Well, we can start with the American Red Cross, the United Way, UNICEF, the Muscular Dystrophy Assn, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs of America; the Big Brothers and Big Sisters, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Disabled American Veterans, the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans’ Assn, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion. That’s just off the top of my head. Shall I go look up some more?
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Texas
Texas? I doubt it — but you no doubt have a link up your sleeve to an incident that took place there sometime, somewhere.
I suspect that those very same people “vilify, jail and murder” members of other religions, as well.
Alex: Your stupendous insanity is unimpressive. I was referring to Muslims who persecute Christians and Jews as well as atheists. This would seem to indicate — hold on to your hat — that atheists are n-o-t s-i-n-g-l-e-d o-u-t.
You atheists are a testy lot, aren’t you?
I guess that’s what comes when you live a life with no meaning.
You better watch that blood pressure, or you’ll be taking that dirt nap sooner than you think.
If more religious people were like this guy, I’d be more tolerant of religion.
CSSL: Please tell me you’re not suggesting that the persecution of the Jews in Germany (1933 - 1945) was religious in nature!
Where the hell did you learn that?
You can disprove a lot of stuff in the bible, but there’s no way to say that God doesn’t exist, nor is there anyway to say it does. If I say I believe there’s a guiding force to the universe, what harm does it do? Now if I impose that belief on you, of course that’s wrong.
Were someone to say Santa Claus exists, that’s clearly disproved via the evidence. Not so much with God.
And here in America, atheists are simply not being persecuted and its silly to say so. Theres about 12% of the population that is black and about 19% or so that’s hispanic - there is one black senator and one hispanic senator. There are even less atheists than blacks and hispanics. It’s not a license to discriminate against anyone, but its also not a significant political constituency.
The neo-atheists are doing Rove’s bidding. Perhaps inadvertently.
The “L” was an accident, and has no hidden meaning.
If more religious people were like this guy, I’d be more tolerant of religion.
You couldn’t be less so.
fd10801: you named organizations that are not directly financially supported by the government, as are organizations under the “Faith-Based Initiative” started by Bush. Thus I must believe that either you did not understand the question, or simply ignored it to cherry-pick your answers, a common strategy among the insane, er religious.
Yes, Texas. I was born in Beaumont, raised in Houston, and traveled all over the state performing in various shows. I’ve seen and heard things that even Borat couldn’t imagine. As for a link; I won’t do your research for you, sorry. I’m not your intern. I don’t even own any decent kneepads at present.
My “stupendous insanity” is nothing compared with those who have an all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-benevolent imaginary friend who, despite these qualities, compels mass murder, rape, arson, theft, and all manner of wickedness while making rules against the very acts he requires of his “flock”. Nope. I can’t compete with that level of crazy. Compared to that, I’m a fucking AMATUER.
Despite your childish/bigoted assumptions, my life has a LOT of meaning. I volunteer for a number of organizations and charities, my theatre company does outreach work with at-risk youth, and survivors of rape and sexual abuse, I have a loving wife and a strong family, and I am owned by five wonderful cats (long story). I have no need to go to a fancy building once or twice a week and “pray” to a “god” (who, from what I’ve read, has all the proclivities of a spoiled child) in order to have “meaning”. That you seem to believe that the non-religious DON’T have meaning marks you as both a bigot and a moron, and clearly underlines the point that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins make about religious judgment, hypocrisy, and insanity. I pity you.
Oh, and my blood pressure is awesome! Thanks for worrying…
Oliver: how many black and hispanic elected officials are there in the United States, vs. how many openly non-religious elected officials?
fd10801: “I guess that’s what comes when you live a life with no meaning.”
Actually, you have that backwards (a common mistake.) It is the belief in God that creates a life with no meaning. Atheism dictates that the only meaning our lives have is our time on this planet. Religion treats our time here as a mere weigh-station on the way to eternity in the hereafter.
So - Atheism: our time on Earth = 100% meaning. Religion: our time on Earth = a fraction of a blip, or .000000000000000001% meaning.
OW: “Were someone to say Santa Claus exists, that’s clearly disproved via the evidence.”
How can you say that? Maybe he simply hasn’t revealed himself to you.
Thus I must believe that either you did not understand the question, or simply ignored it to cherry-pick your answers…
No, you have all the communication skills inherent in blinding anger. I am not to blame for your lack of cogency. If you wanted to say “directly financially supported by the government” you could have said so. I would have named USAID and AmeriCorpsVISTA, and the Peace Corps, and others.
But it’s more important to get in a cheap shot, than it is to communicate.
After all, you’re a superintelligent atheist, and I’m a dumb believer. I’d love to see a list of believers who have accomplished something.
But to publish it, The World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia would have to stop what they’re doing and devote all their time and energy to the list.
Your anger and frustration are obvious. Whether or not you do good stuff has nothing to do with whether or not your life has meaning. Based on your salivating ruminations, I might safely assume that you needn’t care, and that you are wasting your time. Who cares what you do? You’re worm food, anyway.
If you’re doing this stuff for yourself, you’re showing off; if you’re doing it for others, you’re a sap.
And now that you’ve added bigot and moron to idiot, you’ve proven that you have three words in your vocabulary of intellectual violence.
You pity me. Don’t waste your time. Learn a little tolerance for other people’s beliefs, and I’ll believe you’re a human being. Then you can talk about pity.
You’ve just provided me with plenty of evidence that there is absolutely nothing intellectual or scientific about your atheism. You’re just not mature enough to cope with the idea of God.
I’m not surprised. After dealing with you, and people like you, for the last weeks, I have no pity for atheists. They have made their beds, etc.
fd10801: Just so you know, I’m not an atheist. I’ve never said I was anywhere in this thread, in any of my posts. You have decided that I am one. Must be part of that self-delusion thing you excel at, yes?
I consider myself an ignostic, or an apatheist. I suppose that’ll just confuse you more, so I’ll explain: I don’t believe in anything I can’t prove. This includes deities, ghosts, UFOs, psychics, and pompous old farts on the internet. I DO put “faith” (ha!) in certain aspects of science, either because I fully understand them, or I’ve had them explained to me in such a way that I comprehend their meaning.
Gosh. I hope that helps, although I somehow doubt it will. Rock on, Frankie.
f10801,
The devil can cite Scripture to suit his purpose…
atheists qua atheists
Calling someone an idiot, because you fail to understand the meaning of qua, kind of qualifies you as an … idiot, don’t you think?
Frank,
I’ll try to speak slowly….
(1) Thanks for comparing me to the your Biblical boogeyman. Classy.
(2) I perfectly well know the meaning of ‘qua.’ I also know that the list I referred to is a list of self-professed atheists and/or freethinkers. I gather you think they had to have their magical atheist hats on at the time of their accomplishments to count. I don’t know what their hats looked like. Neither do you.
(3)Um, didn’t refer to you as an idiot, you are confused.
OW: “Were someone to say Santa Claus exists, that’s clearly disproved via the evidence.”
How can you say that? Maybe he simply hasn’t revealed himself to you.
last time that happened, dude got arrested.
1)It’s a fairly common saying. Look it up.
2)I don’t know what their hats looked like. Neither do you.
Since atheism is all about certainty, then you should be certain that these people were representing atheism when they wrote or accomplished whatever.
You’re not? Oh, well.
3) I didn’t refer to you as an idiot, but John did refer to me as an idiot.
Who cares what you do? You’re worm food, anyway.
If you’re doing this stuff for yourself, you’re showing off; if you’re doing it for others, you’re a sap.
What to oversimplify, Frank. Perhaps people who do not subscribe to a higher authority (daddy figure) act benevolently and altruistically because they have “faith” in humanity. That doing good deeds is itself rewarding.
Don’t put people down because they don’t believe the same things you do. Some folks don’t need somebody else to tell them what to believe.
Duros: Don’t put people down because they don’t believe the same things you do
Are you sure you’re addressing the right guy? Have you been following thsi thread, or just reading only my comments?
Holy crap!
No, that goes for everybody.