So here’s a startling observation: religion is contentious. That’s why they pay me the big bucks, folks. Well, considering the kind of conversation that gets started up every time I derisively link to one of the new “militant atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and now Christopher Hitchens) I thought it was worth letting you all know where I’m coming from on this issue. Yes, it’s a very special OliverWillis.com.
I was born in 1977, and christened in the Anglican church which is the church of many people in Jamaica, including my mom. She’s a strong believer, but not in what I would term a “crazy” way. She raised me with her beliefs which essentially boil down to being a good person, praying for others and giving thanks to God. I moved to Jamaica at about the age of four and attended a Catholic elementary school. We had a bible study class and you learn about the twelve disciples and mostly Genesis and a few of the morality stories (like Lot and the wife turning into salt and Jonah’s technicolor robe and the like). Like most kids, I believe what I’m told and taught. It isn’t like we’re doing hardcore fundamentalist things. You pray before meals, you try not to sin but you don’t go around whipping yourself like the albino guy from DaVinci Code.
Some cracks in the armor appear when my Mom decided that we were going to go to church on Sundays. It’s not that I start lashing out, but that I start falling asleep. So much so that (and this is according to my Mom and not my memories) I snore loudly in the middle of the service. As a result, we stop going. To this day I don’t really get the whole going to church thing. If God is the omnipotent being he’s billed as, why do you have to go to a specific building every week and have the reverend/pastor/whatever give you a new spin on “don’t sin”? So, we’re not churchgoers.
I get a little older and discover I love science. DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! This is where things get a little dicey. I can’t reconcile the Garden Of Eden and the prehistoric era. I ask my mom why there’s nothing about dinosaurs in the bible, and did they come before or after Adam and Eve. In my mind at the time, everything was fused. Much like the Crisis On Infinite Earths I sought to mush everything into one coherent storyline. As I got older I understood the impossibility of this all.
Eventually, science wins out. I realize as my studies go that a lot of the stuff in the bible was invented or just out and out wrong/impossible. But I don’t give up on the concept of God. I figure, okay, maybe the Bible’s taken a little dramatic license but probably the “guts” of it are valid. While the God of the Old Testament seems like something of a dick (He’s always testing people and screwing them royally when they don’t seem to “love” him enough), the God/Jesus stuff in the New Testament with all it’s sixties-style love and happiness feels like a cool enough thing to work towards. Coming up into my teens I’ve strayed from my mother’s concept of it all and essentially created my own personal Jesus. I pick and choose, I admit, assuming that if God exists He thinks all the formality and ritual surrounding religion is pretty silly. I mean, really, does God hear the prayers of an older black woman better if she’s wearing a really sharp dress and fantastic looking hat? I just don’t see it. And if he does? That’s pretty superficial for the Ultimate Being.
Crisis. Twelve years ago this month (June, 1995) my Mom had a heart attack. She had blockage in one of her arteries and required angioplasty. During the angioplasty her vein broke and she had to have emergency bypass surgery.
Let me backtrack a bit here. Everyone thinks their mother is great, but mine truly is. She is the most selfless and caring person I’ve ever known. She cares for everyone and won’t think twice to help a stranger. Being like that has burned her a million times and she persists to be this good person to this day.
I remember the moment quite clearly. I was walking down the street from the hospital where my mom was (it was just around the corner from our house) and I made sure to say out loud that God could go screw himself. Maybe everyone thinks like this when their family goes through a major medical crisis, but I just couldn’t reconcile this apparently great deity in the bible with the pain my mother was going through. And she wasn’t just a Joe Schmoe but one of the true believers, you would think that if any person would be spared, it would be her. But she wasn’t. So, I figured if God did exist he was an ass I wouldn’t want to be associated with and more than likely he just didn’t exist.
She had a totally different take on the issue. The entire episode made her belief stronger. She belives the entire episode was a wake-up call and God is the one to thank for allowing her to survive it and live to this day. I still don’t agree with her, but believe she’s got a right to see it her way as I saw it my way.
Since then I’ve identified myself as agnostic. I figure that I don’t know the secrets of the universe and I don’t believe those who profess to without hard evidence to back them up. But I also think things happen for a reason. I don’t think there’s a God determining if you wake up on the left or right side of your bed, but I also like to think that the entire purpose of man is not to be born, procreate then die and decay in the ground. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but I don’t see a reason to get up in the morning if that’s it to life. I think life has purpose and we should try our best to be good people while we’re here. I like to think that when you die the good gets weighed against the bad and you go to the good place forever or the bad place. Whether this involves angels, wings, St. Peter, the devil and Hell I have no clue and think life’s too short to waste time gaming it all out. If there’s a God or something like it, I don’t think he/she/it wants us to spend so much of our lives fixated on what happens after we die.
I’m always suspicious of religion when it gets organized, or when leaders or nations claim to have the deity on their side because that usually ends up excusing some horribly immoral behavior. I don’t believe in foisting belief systems on people, and certainly believe that in America our leaders are entitled to their beliefs but the line stops at them imposing those beliefs on the rest of us - even to people who may share their God.
To sum up - I don’t think God was really actively rooting for Tony Dungy in the Superbowl. But I think that the Universal Power was pleased when Doug Williams threw four touchdowns in one quarter in January of 1987.
Oliver sez: “I also like to think that the entire purpose of man is not to be born, procreate then die and decay in the ground. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but I don’t see a reason to get up in the morning if that’s it to life.”
Idunno. If 1/3 of our purpose is to procreate, I can think of a couple reasons to get out of bed in the morning
“I think that the Universal Power was pleased when Doug Williams threw four touchdowns in one quarter in January of 1987.”
My God, why hast thou forsaken my Broncos?
Not sure who said it, but here goes my bastardization of their great quote-
If there is a God, and he has some infinite plan for all of us, it won’t be delivered to me via some guy with a bad hairdo and a satelite link-up
No one says it more succinctly than Randy Newman…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyvztDNJTZw
Oliver sez: “I also like to think that the entire purpose of man is not to be born, procreate then die and decay in the ground.”
You also like to think Jessica Alba has the hots for you.
“Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, but I don’t see a reason to get up in the morning if that’s it to life.”
I can’t remember who said this, but one of my favorite quotes on the subject is, “If nothing you do matters, than all that matters is what you do.”
If there’s a great plan set up by some grand power, then it doesn’t matter what I do because that grand plan will happen regardless. On the other hand, if we are on our on, then we have to work at making the world a better place.
If there’s no heaven or hell, we have to make sure we do all we can with the limited amount of time we have. However, it is that very limitation that makes our time precious.
If there’s no heaven or hell, we have to make sure we do all we can with the limited amount of time we have.
I don’t believe the nonexistence of heaven or hell compels us to do anything.
On the other hand, if I am here for a purpose, that presupposes that someone else is involved in the purpose (unless, of course, my purpose in life is to die quietly unnoticed in a corner within hours of my birth — but even then, the finding of my body will effect someone) if I fail to do whatever my purpose might be.
I believe that we should try to make life better for each other whether there’s a god or not. If there’s no god, you certainly have no excuse for screwing up the only life someone has. And if there is a just and loving god, I don’t think he’d disapprove of making it a priority to try to do good for people and avoid hurting them.
But whenever someone I love dies, I wish like hell I could know that I’d see them again in another life. But I don’t know, and I find that hard to believe.
But it’s also hard to believe that some of the wonderful, fantastic people I have known can just come to an end and be forgotten by the universe. That’s not right.
joseph had the technicolor coat. jonah ended up inside a whale.
If there’s no god, you certainly have no excuse for screwing up the only life someone has.
You and the commenter at 5:27 AM are saying the same thing. “If .. then” implies a condition. If there is no God, there is absolutely no limit to your behavior, but your own imagination. Where would you get the idea that you shouldn’t “screw up another person’s life”?
joseph had the technicolor coat. jonah ended up inside a whale.
sorry for the doublepost. not sure what i did. also, the Universal Power would have been confused to see Doug Williams throw 4 TDs in January of 1987, considering it was the my NY Giants who won SB XXI that month.
If there is no God, there is absolutely no limit to your behavior, but your own imagination. Where would you get the idea that you shouldn’t “screw up another person’s life”?
Any social anthropologist worth a good goddamn can answer your question on where morals come from (heres a hint, in a group of people, the asshole gets shunned). The fun bit though, is the idea that moral behavior cannot exist without God. Well, Not-Frank-At-All-Certainly, you’re basically telling us that the only reason you aren’t, say, a violent sociopath is because God exists? I mean you’re saying if he didn’t there’d be no moral imperative, and therefore no reason to behave morally, yes? Pretty bleak view of human nature there, friend. Why do you think so poorly of God’s creation? How dare you sir.
And O-Dub, Agnosticism is as much an intellectually lazy cop-out as a Fundamentalist letting the preacher doing the thinking for him. It is not, as you repeatedly suggest, arrogance to believe, as the atheist does, that the existence/necessity of the supernatural in tandem with the natural universe must be testable or provable hypothesis. The arrogant thing is to assume a personally convenient view of the world and deign it unchallengable. ‘Well nobody can really know’ ‘Different kind of argument’ ‘Non-Overlapping Magesteria’ and so many other horseshit reasons that keep yourself from having to reconsider your comfortable self-indulgent worldview.
I used to be agnostic myself, and for the record, I’m not saying anything to you now that I wouldn’t have said to my younger self. Difference is, when I realized I didn’t know the answers, at some point I went out looking for them instead if sitting in a warm puddle of my own self-satisfaction.
joseph had the technicolor coat. jonah ended up inside a whale.
And it was the Japanese, not the Germans, who bombed Pearl Harbor. Let it go–he’s on a roll.
Oliver, I enjoyed reading your story.
Now, I would like to try to tell you where the so-called neo-atheists are coming from. A large number of them shared a path that was similar to yours, eventually reaching a conclusion that God does not exist. Most of us do not go around criticizing the beliefs of strangers or causing trouble. Sure, we’ll participate in a debate, but we aren’t the people screaming obscenities on the subway.
The neo-atheists take an aggressive posture against religion because of how it is used by others. Religion motivates people to legislate their belief structure on everyone else in society. In a land where there is a separation between church and state, we see that as a bad thing.
The approach of the neo-atheists then is to challenge those who would legislate their beliefs on us, as well as the moderately religious who give tacit consent. The logic behind the approach is that if they are making divisive decisions and starting wars because of their religion, then it is the religion itself that must be challenged. Extremists will continue to do things “in God’s name”, and the moderate will implicitly approve, unless of course they no longer believe in God.
That posture of the neo-atheists is not one that is struck out of anger, but out of desperation.
| Jun 13, 2007 5:38:21 AM
“If there’s no heaven or hell, we have to make sure we do all we can with the limited amount of time we have.
I don’t believe the nonexistence of heaven or hell compels us to do anything.
On the other hand, if I am here for a purpose, that presupposes that someone else is involved in the purpose (unless, of course, my purpose in life is to die quietly unnoticed in a corner within hours of my birth — but even then, the finding of my body will effect someone) if I fail to do whatever my purpose might be.”
| Jun 13, 2007 9:33:50 AM
“If there’s no god, you certainly have no excuse for screwing up the only life someone has.
You and the commenter at 5:27 AM are saying the same thing. “If .. then” implies a condition. If there is no God, there is absolutely no limit to your behavior, but your own imagination. Where would you get the idea that you shouldn’t “screw up another person’s life”?”
Oh God, is Frank back?
Do you think Dung beetles contemplate the meaning of life? No, they don’t They are born, eat, fuck and die. Just like every other life form on this planet. Why would a different set of rules apply to us bipedal primates than to every other living thing on the planet since its inception?
Do you realize we are the only species that struggles with this? We may very well be the only species on the planet that wants to know “why.”
From every rational aspect, theist and atheist alike, the answer is “Because.”
So get up in the morning anyway, and fuck like a bunny.
Dugger and pedro seem to never fail to chime in with one of their un-asked-for opinions. I wonder why they’ve decided to set this thread out?
Where would you get the idea that you shouldn’t “screw up another person’s life”?”
Basic human decency is not reliant on faith in God.
from Albert Einstein:
“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
I used to be a get-along, go-along agnostic, too, but regular reading of PZ Myers has made me one of those hard-ass atheists. I recommend Pharyngula to anyone who is sitting on the fence.
Wow, John. Do you also have eyes on challenging the sale of hammers, baseball bats, and tire irons because they are often used to attack people?
Do you honestly believe that by marginalizing religion you will get rid of war? I know, you did not say that were out to marginalize religion, but that is the next logical step. If you challenge it, success would have to be, in your eyes, the marginalization of religion to the point that it is not powerful enough to have an effect on people that, when used by a crafty politician, might result in the convincing of people to go to war.
Have you considered that, besides the fact that people are entitled to believe what they want and you or anybody else has no right to marginalize them, that religion provides comfort, solace, and encouragement for billions of people? You must understand that religion, for many that follow it, is not a casual hobby that can be easily marginalized. It is their life. It is what makes them smile, it is what helps them get through the day.
If we’ve got a politician who likes to project that they are religious in order to garner support, and then uses that power to generate support for an unjust/unneccessary war, or is otherwise misusing their rep, I think that the problem is that person.
Yes, there is a support structure involved. The politician wants the connection to religion to garner votes, and must, from time to time, pander to those causes. Not that they ever really do anything for the religious voters, but apparently it is enough to simply pretend. Anyway, you then have the religious big shots who get on the TV screen and show support for the politician’s causes. It’s a scratch-my-back, I’ll- scratch-yours kind of thing, I suppose.
There are plenty of Christians who can see past all of this. Jesus himself said that you will know men by their fruit, and a Christian who is thoughtful will probably not be the one who is pushing for an unjust/unneccessary war, pushing the envelope on torture, appeasing their cronies instead of hiring qualified people in positions where people’s lives are on the line, and hiring doubletalking attorneys to protect themselves from actions that one should be ashamed of.
As far as tacit support goes, get real. That argument could be used for any situation. Unless you are actively involved in the solution of a given problem, it could be said that you are giving tacit support through your inaction or by your passive involvement. For example, I bet that fundamentalist Al-Queda types are often preaching about every Western citizen giving tacit support for the infidel society or whatever, just because they buy blue jeans and dvd’s.
Bottom line - Leave the religion, and the religious, alone. That’s a bullshit argument, and I have a pretty good feeling that an agenda like that has nothing to do with a desire for peace and everything to do with your disdain for religion. Maybe you encountered too many pushy Bible-thumpers in your life, I don’t know. No disrespect for your life’s journey, I’m sure you have your reasons, but attacking someone’s religion because it’s being misused by another is not the way to go.
And Oliver, I have been where you are, and I was witnessed to one day. That person helped me to pursue my own relationship with God, whether or not the evangelical society agrees with me on this or that. I am also not sure how to reconcile Genesis with dinosaurs, but I don’t believe that such arguments are the point of having faith in God. Personal misfortune and the pain of seeing a loved one suffering is a common reason for one’s faith to falter, and often drives the doubtful even further away. I think that Christianity has been dealt a great disservice by fundamentalists who pushed the idea of strict obedience or you go to Hell. The end result is a culture that makes one resent Christianity. When those who were nice enough, in the resentful person’s eyes, to submit to the faith and then receive some misfortune, it is like the old saying about adding insult to injury. I believe that God often intervenes, but not always, and that it sucks but it will be okay. God is not doing that out of malice, and thoughts of anger are understandable. I think that God understands this anger and will let it go if you will also let go.
Thanks for letting me fill up so much space.
…religion provides comfort, solace, and encouragement for billions of people? … It is what makes them smile, it is what helps them get through the day.
When I was a kid I was the same exact way about Star Trek. Didn’t make it true, did it?
To your larger point though, and here I do not presume to speak to John, but I would love nothing more than to see, in my lifetime, religion marginalized the hell out of by logical empiricism for the very simple reason that it provides nothing unique to itself except the public justification for evil. Without the idea of supernatural justification for the hatred of the (and I’m still so very happy he’s) dead Jerry Falwell nobody on earth would have given such a mindless bigot so much as the time of day. But he spoke for God so not only does that give him an audience, but gets people who disagree with him to tell themselves “well thats not my personal philosophy but I dare not oppose him, I mean what if he really does speak for the invisible sky fairy?” Without religion, Christians would still be charitible and sociable and kind because its human bloddy nature to be, plus we’d have the added bonus of not having to put up with the Falwells of the world (or, arguably, the bin Ladens either)
I cant correctly attribute the following quote, but it sums up my point: “Without religion you’d still have good men doing good things and evil men doing evil things, but for good men to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Christian-OW fan: I would argue that the tacit consent is different in the argument of religion. The reason is that religion, or at least organized religion, promotes subordinating rational analysis and critical thought. If you are a believer, even a moderate, you are more susceptible to being manipulated by the siren call of a leader who claims to have a connection with the divine. I am not saying this is the case for all believers, and you rightly pointed out that there are many religious people who see past all of this. The problem is that they are outnumbered by those who choose not to, and we as a country end up with a political system that more and more shows disdain for reason.
I can only speak for myself, and I know that you disagree with me on this, but I would like to see religion marginalized in public life. I don’t mean that in any legal or forced manner. I am not advocating any level of bigotry or persecution (but go ahead and cherrypick if you like). By marginalized, I mean that I just would rather have our politicians spend more time discussing policy nuances than the role God plays in their lives. I fully know that the neo-atheists will never succeed, nor should they, from stopping those who choose to believe from doing so. However, if they succeed in a more subtle change that helps bring the focus of debate back to policy issues, I think that would be a very, very good thing for our country and our world.
The fun bit though, is the idea that moral behavior cannot exist without God.
No one said that. The premise in each of the comments — neither of which was made by you, Person - Whose - Name - is - Certainly - Not - Rex - or - Mundane, was that if there was no God, then they felt compelled to do the right thing.
My question — not a statement — was, “Why?” Why would a person who didn’t believe in any God feel compelled to do good things?
“Any social anthropologist worth a good goddamn” will tell you that anti - social (i.e., anti - group) will get you “in trouble with God” before it gets you shunned.
And minimizing that behavior by saying that any asshole gets shunned, is like saying that wearing a silly hat, and murdering someone will get the same punishment.
eciding which crimes are “worse” than others are all a part of a distinct morality that has at its base, a belief in a Supreme Being or Beings.
This is what we “militant atheists” are fighting against:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ – to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are afier. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after.
“World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less. If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose. Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God’s rule. Fortunately, because of the theocratic orientation of our founding fathers, our nation has virtually all the apparatus extant to implement such a reclamation. Unfortunately, the enemies of the Gospel have hand-in-hand eroded the strength of those godly foundations. Thus, we stand at the crossroads.”
(From The changing of the guard : Biblical blueprints for political actionby George Grant.
By saying that we don’t have the right to criticize religion for its bad effects on society, and for its utter lack of any basis in reality, you are giving aid and comfort to these people, Christian-OW-Fan. Whether or not your own views are progressive, you are privileging extremist agendas such as Christian Reconstructionism by placing them beyond criticism.
“…[R]eligion provides comfort, solace, and encouragement for billions of people…”
So does a two-gallon jug of moonshine, but that doesn’t make it healthy.
Frank, you’re a goddamn moron.
“My question — not a statement — was, “Why?” Why would a person who didn’t believe in any God feel compelled to do good things?”
So you would feel free to murder, rape, pillage, and act just like an Exxon executive if not for the fear of the wrath of the Invivisible Sky Fairy? Puh-leeze.
People learn right from wrong by socialization and upbringing. Even if murder weren’t against the law, and I weren’t afraid of going to prison, I wouldn’t commit it, nor would most people. Fear of supernatural ire has nothing to do with it.
So somehow attacking all the religious is an appropriate response to extremists like Falwell? Does not compute. I’m prone to think that a lot of this comes about because the media pays attention to the crazy religious people and not the vast array of normal folks. It doesn’t help that our current president is a nutty religionist. Clinton and Carter were both quite religious without being nuts.
And yes, I think people can be good people without believing in anything. Some of the worst people are religious, some of the best aren’t.
Um..Amen, Oliver.
All I have to say that is if Jesus Christ ever does return, alot of people are going to be very disappointed.
John, I don’t feel that shifting the focus of politics back to it’s priorities of taking care of and leading the nation is a marginalization of religion. I think that is where we ought to be. If a politician is Christian, or otherwise on a decent moral track, it will be reflected in their actions. The truly tough don’t have to get a tattoo and puff out their chest, know what I mean? Not to say that faith should be hidden, but that it should not be worn like a badge in order to deceive the faithful into voting for you. It does nothing for me to hear a politician talk about their religion. I take it with a grain of salt, and we will see what they actually do with their time in office. Let my pastor do the sermonizing, the leader’s job is to run the country, preferably not into the ground.
Also, Rex - “it provides nothing unique to itself except the public justification for evil.” ? While I do not pretend to deny the use of religion for war, religion itself is not the problem. Man is a social creature. If not religion, then some other popular issue can always be harnessed and focused towards a given cause, whether it’s the haves and have nots, the just and unjust, or any tit for tat scenario. The American model is probably the closest thing we have to keep that from happening, in that the citizens are supposed to be above the Government, and should be able to resist a rattling far war, and take out the government by force if need be (right to bear arms). Most people, unfortunately, do not ask enough questions to be able to determine the truth behind the flag-draped rhetoric, regardless of their religion, and most folks wouldn’t have the gumption to then challenge the government.
Oliver, it’s appropriate to attack religious beliefs held by our citizenry, regardless of their level of extremism. The reason for this is that religion is, at its heart, devoid of logic and reason. Religion, and belief in God(s) specifically, encourages people to abandon curiosity and reason in favor of completely unverified and unsupported tales that are fundamentally no different than the story of Beowulf, or the story of Sisyphus. It promotes complacency.
“Why is the sky blue?” “How does the brain work?” “Why do people behave morally?” It’s easy to answer these questions by invoking God, but it’s incredibly lazy and intellectually bankrupt to do so.
The religious are, by definition, unreasonable people. I want to live in a world that values critical thinking and logical empiricism over myths and untestable hypotheses.
Oliver, I’ve got no problem with religious people like Carter (whose post-presidential career I admire greatly), and I don’t point out the nonsensicality of religion for its own sake. People are welcome to believe whatever they want (I think that’s even in the Constitution somewhere ;-)). It’s the privileging of religious discourse that I and others object to.
Think global warming is hooey at Jeebus is going to rescue the righteous as soon as everything is royally fucked up here on earth? All you have to do is invoke religion, and you get a free pass (oh, those are his sincerely held religious beliefs, don’t mock them. I think we are in basic agreement that public policy should be based on rational, scientific principles, but where we part ways is the extent to which we are willing to forego criticism of religious beliefs in the public forum, for fear of offending the believers. Furthermore, if the belief is actually true, it should be robust enough to stand up to scrutiny, and even mockery.
“If not religion, then some other popular issue can always be harnessed and focused towards a given cause…”
C-OW-F, religion always adds an extra dollop of Crazy to any bad policy (certainly I concede other issues can provide an impetus), but nothing equals the power of religious archetypes for stirring up unconsious fears and desires in the service of demagoguery. Precisely because it is so powerful (as Jung and others since him have demonstrated, it is hard-wired into our brains), it needs to be countered by forceful means.
Matt - I don’t know George Grant, and what he has to say has nothing more to do with me than it has to do with you. I am not responsible for his thoughts, and I don’t think God personally commissioned him to speak for the Trinity.
From the small bit you quoted, I think that he is stretching the point that we Christians should spread God’s word, but I think that has more to do with witnessing and speaking and living by example and loving others than about dominion.
You are more than welcome to criticize religion. You may cherry pick some fundie book as the example of Christianity. Just know that you are missing the point. When I got on here today to comment on “neo-atheists” (or whatever the aggressive atheist thing is that OW has been talking about) I was specifically addressing the activists, or the Fundamentalist Atheists, it seems, who I feel would disrespect my faith. I didn’t get on here to dress down atheists as a whole, even for their passive involvement. Likewise, I think maybe you should address your fervor to the Religious Fundamentalists and not to the rest of us who can reason and simply want a relationship with God without the politics.
Meant to say, “[t]hink global warming is hooey and Jeebus is going to rescue the righteous
Mambo has managed to make the point I intended to more quickly and clearly than I would have. Cheers, sir.
C-OW-F, we seem to be in agreement about the importance of challenging authority and asking questions. My point though it that religion actively suppresses that necessary action, for the very simple reason that it cannot survive under even the most basic scrutiny before resorting to the “you will never understand” defense, which is as insulting as it is pious. Religion breeds the mindset of accepting the idea of unanswerable (and therefore unaskable) questions that manifests itself into other fields and destroys other debates. “They hate us for our freedom!” “Um, didnt they specifically mention something about we shouldnt be stationed over there? I’m just curio-” “AMERICA HATER!”
Also Frank? (I assume it is, though don’t know why you wont just say) Moral codes develop in cultures and tribes that have no concept of supreme beings or Gods. Always have and forever will. Please stop confusing yourself for someone who understands shit about fuck, could’ya?
“Where would you get the idea that you shouldn’t “screw up another person’s life”?”
I never understood the argument that without god there is no compulsion to do good or behave in a moral way.
The concept of god and morality were invented by mankind. Isn’t that enough to acknowledge that men are moral beings, capable of great good and desirous of a moral order in and of themselves? Is it not the punitive side of western religion, at least, acknowledgement enough that we are self-aware enough to recognize that living a good life is a difficult, challenging thing at times? Between the desire for good and the self-awareness that striving for good is often difficult, can’t we jettison the concept of god and accept ourselves as beings worthy of moral treatment and capable of moral behavior?
If god was the booster rocket we needed to propel these concepts deep into the consciousness, well, i think it’s time we cut it loose and moved on to the next phase of lift off …
There was a reason I decided to go. It was a mistake to return.
mambohen: “You’re a goddamned moron” falls decidedly short of a well - thought out, reasoned response. It only proves that it is your civility that fades like dust in the wind, once you realize it is me you are addressing. Thank God your foray onto the psychological “turf” is in the clinical area, where your poison need not affect real people in need of help.
Rex Mundane: (That is your real name, right?) If you could name just one “culture or tribe” in which “moral codes develop”, “that have no concept of supreme beings or Gods”, it would certainly help to convince me that you understand “shit about fuck”.
Until then, you can go to Human Obedience School with Mambohen, each proof in black and white that you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God.
Oh, I forgot, Frank DiSalle wrote the preceding comment.
“I was specifically addressing the activists, or the Fundamentalist Atheists, it seems, who I feel would disrespect my faith.”
C-OW-F, why do you care what they think? Why does their purported disrespect bother you? If you are secure in your beliefs, a little “disrespect” should have no effect on you whatever. The heavy artillery barrage is meant for the George Grants; just let the shells pass howling over your head, and enjoy the son et lumiere show.
I do bridle at the term “Fundamentalist Atheist”, though. That is a prime example of a false equivalence, akin to “evolution is just another religion, too”. No, it is not–there are no fundamental tenets of faith that one has to have to be an atheist, merely a frank acknowledgement of the lack of any real-world evidence for God, any god. (Note also that it is not active denial of god, either: merely saying that the question is not resolvable by empirical means, and therefore irrelevant to human life.) Sonehow theists tend to misread that as an attack on their beliefs, but it is just a realistic assessment of our place in the universe, for us. Instead of “Fundamentalist Atheists”, I think “Pissed Off and Had Enough Atheists” would be more accurate; we’ve been reviled and ignored by the culture at large for too long now, and we want our place in the conversation, too. That is all.
‘Rex Mundane: (That is your real name, right?) If you could name just one “culture or tribe” in which “moral codes develop”, “that have no concept of supreme beings or Gods”, it would certainly help to convince me that you understand “shit about fuck”.’
The ancient Chinese. They had a bunch of vague and distant amoral little godlings who did nothing to meddle in human affairs, and worshipped their own ancestors, yet they developed highly sophisticated moral and ethical systems such as Confucianism and Taoism (including, as with most cultures, a form of the Golden Rule).
Oliver, you seem to be ignoring the critical point that people listen to those like Falwell. Pat Robertson has his own university for God’s sake (pun intended). Their tactics may be distasteful, but they are effective. I shouldn’t need to remind you about the effectiveness of dirty tactics.
You also equate telling religious people they are wrong with attacking them. That is a pretty low bar. Perhaps in politics it is convenient to denounce those who disagree with you as rabid attackers, but that is all it is, convenient. Surely our time would be better spent discussing the issues themselves than the messengers who deliver them. Maybe the mindnumbingness of DC politics has made you forget that passionate debate that criticizes ideas and not people is still possible.
The neo-atheists are attacking ideas, not people. The reason you may find that distateful is because, as Christian-OW Fan pointed out, religion is not a hobby for many belivers; it is central to who they are. It may truly be impossible to criticize religious ideas without making people feel like it is a personal attack. Religous beliefs have become ingrained in their identity, and are central to how they think, so a criticism of those ideas probably does feel like a personal attack, even when it is not. That is unfortunate, but I believe that is a ruse thrown up by those who are unwilling to or cannot adequately defend their most important beliefs on merit. I respect someone who can passionately defend their faith. I do not respect someone who says that simply raising questions is out of line.
Besides, standing up for what you believe in is what I believe America is all about. If what I believe is different from what you believe and that happens to piss you off, then so be it. You are free to ignore me and the debate. If you decide to enter though, then please realize that their are no sacred cows, and that you are expected to be able to recognize the difference between questioning ideas and attacking people.
Frank, if you think it was a mistake to come back, then leave. Please. Forever.
You’re a worthless human being. I don’t tend to be civil to people who continually demonstrate themselves to be as pompous, smug, ignorant, and uncurious as you. You’re a clown, the sad sort of fool that thinks that he’s a genius.
“…you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God.”
This is the kind of statement that makes everyone on this blog think you’re an imbecile, Frank. I called you a goddamn idiot earlier simply because your previous post was 100%, completely wrong, and I got pissed off because I thought we were rid of you and your unbelievably inanity.
As uncivil as it may be, I’m in Strowbridge’s camp. When you die, I will be as upset as I was when I learned that Falwell croaked.
I would prefer not to be murdered by someone else. From this I extrapolate that others would prefer not to be murdered by me. Recognizing this commonality, I have concluded that murdering people is wrong.
Simplistic, sure, but it is not all that fucking hard to think that morality doesn’t require the concept of a loving/punishing supreme being.
Mankind had to create a supreme who love him before he could love himself. Kind of sad isn’t it?
The neo-atheists are attacking ideas, not people.
That’s just it. They aren’t. As evidenced by some of the comments right here, the neo-atheists folks see the need to deride people and assert their superiority. I’m not being willfully obtuse when I say that I don’t understand it. As you can probably read from what I’ve written before and in this post, I’m more inclined to agree with an atheist over the religious fundamentalists, which is why I think the neo-atheists come off like such dicks.
Falwell had, and his lieutenants do, have power. Ditto for Robertson and that whole crowd - trust me I hear more of their work product than the average person does. But you make a grave mistake when you broaden your attack across the Christian/Religious spectrum. Do you really think progressive gains in America were all made by atheists? The religious - to this day - make up a significant amount of the progressive movement. They’re pro-science, pro-logic and pro-deity. Why do you think they need to be attacked too because Jerry Falwell perverts the God they believe in? What does it gain you or your allies? Nothing.
“…you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God.”
This is the kind of statement that makes everyone on this blog think you’re an imbecile, Frank
I know that it won’t matter to you, but it will matter to me, and perhaps to some people on this blog for whom liberal is more than a convenient label, but:
1) “…you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God”, is not what I said. There was an obvious context that implied something completely different.
2)The fact that you had to cherry pick to produce that statement indicates that you are simply making a case for your own crudity, as you have done many times in the past. Interesting that you place yourself at CSS’s side, as he has employed the same tactic many a time.
3) “This is the kind of statement that makes everyone on this blog think you’re an imbecile, Frank”, represents an attempt by you to speak for the entire blog. This is also an attempt by you to cloak your crudity in propriety — “We all feel this way, don’t we, guys? Guys?”
4)As uncivil as it may be… When you die, I will be as upset as I was when I learned that Falwell croaked.
In the first place, you are under no obligation to be civil to me. You have already convinced yourself of that. Plus, I have heard your poor, but obstinate arguments for the idea that you can respect whoever you feel like respecting, and to hell with everyone else (that this doesn’t square too well with the innate ability of humans to impose morality upon themselves, seems never to have occurred to you). Having no qualms about being uncivil towards me in life, why would you hesitate to be uncivil towards me in death? As far as CSS is concerned, he can rest assured, as can you, that I won’t be pissing on anyone’s grave, since I won’t be paying any attention to your death, or the location of your burial site.
Given your beliefs, I suspect that you won’t either.
Secondly, for people like you to put me in the company of men like Falwell is a great compliment. We probably agreed on very little, but I’m sure we would have agreed on the sheer evil, both conscious and unconscious, of people like you.
“1) “…you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God”, is not what I said. There was an obvious context that implied something completely different.”
There was? What context was that Frank? You proceeded this comment by suggesting that there are no human societies on the planet with a moral code and no conception of supreme being.
You frank if you have to spin your own bullshit this badly it doesn’t really support the case that anyone should take you seriously at all.
Fuck.
Frank’s back.
Frank’s Comment Blog. Hosted by Oliver Willis.
No Frank. No. I cherrypicked nothing. You’ve made it abundantly clear you think that belief in God is necessary for a moral code, including in the comment I was quoting you from. You’re a liar, Frank. Here’s the full quote from you, you lying sack of shit:
“Until then, you can go to Human Obedience School with Mambohen, each proof in black and white that you have no concept of right and wrong without a belief in God.”
Tell me how I’m misinterpreting your stance. Oh wait, better idea. Don’t. Just leave. Go away. You think that I’m erroneously purporting to speak for everyone. I believe I’m making no error. How many times has a fellow commenter come on this blog and wrote, “Hey, Frank makes an excellent point…” OK, how many come on this blog and write, “Goddamn, Frank, you’re wrong, you’re an idiot and this is why…” Do I need to ask for a show of hands from the audience? I don’t think so.
You don’t know anything. You’re a fucking clown. You’re so unbelievably, idiotically wrong, all the time that I can scarcely believe that you’re serious with what you write here.
Personally, any event which results in you not posting here anymore would be a beautiful and welcome outcome… I don’t care how it happens, whether that’s a personal awakening or a run-in with a commuter bus. So please, either get your shit together or lie down in a busy intersection.
I’ll post here when I want, mambochicken23. And if that displeases you, well you need not die over it.
Wishing that people would die is obviously a left wing concept with which I am not familiar.
I just read that communists and socialists (all atheists to a man) were responsible for about 90 million deaths in the 20th Century.
Your writing style and language choice indicate that you are an extremely unhappy individual. I sincerely hope you live for a long, long, time.
You do realize that it was really, really stupid of you to post that comment, don’t you, MC23?
Sigh…
1) You’ll post here when you want, sure. After throwing a hissy-fit and supposedly leaving the blog forever less than a week ago. It was a good few days. Real mature of you to start posting again without using your handle, too. Funny that both I and Rex knew immediately that you were back though. Indicates how predictable and stereotyped you are.
2) Wishing death on people = left wing concept? Ha. Ok man. That’s a perfectly reasonable extrapolation of my statement.
3) So if an atheist commits a murder, it means that atheism is responsible for the death? Can you demonstrate that those murders happened in the name of atheism? No? OK then, shut up.
4) It’s true that when I’m addressing you I’m not very happy. For someone who bristles whenever anyone tells you to get help, or when someone makes any kind of psychological evaluation of you… for you to make a judgment on my overall happiness based on your limited exposure to my ideas here, that would seem to make you a hypocrite, wouldn’t it? That and about another thousand things.
You’re a joke, Frank, and you bring out the absolute worst in me. Congratulations on that.
Why was it stupid for me to post that comment, Frank? I’d really love to hear what you have to say, because you’re so knowledgeable and thoughtful and I greatly value your opinion.
First, I think it’s hilarious that so many folks guessed that the blank poster was Frank. I don’t know Frank, but still, that whole bit is pretty funny, and I haven’t even read all of the material. Lotsa love here for ol’ Frank.
You’re all right to challenge the stereotype or definition of the neo-atheist, or atheist, or whatever it’s called, just as I challenge your notions of Christians. Few can really be defined into a neat little box. Some see religion as the biggest problem we have, some would simply like to live their life without being threatened with Hell if they don’t eat the bread. My point still stands. Even if you were able to take religion out of the picture, something would be used to rile people up.
The reason why I jump in is because, as OW pointed out, some of the comments are disrespectful to Christians in general. That is unnecessary. Example? How about the one who said that Christians can’t reason? How about the person who called my God a sky-fairy? It’s one thing to debate with me about a God you can’t see, and to say, therefore, that you question believers, but it’s quite another to insult my Saviour and my intellect.
If you want to challenge TV preachers and politicians, that’s easy enough. Many use the religion for greed and pride. You can attack greed and pride. If you want to challenge sheeple who follow any damned thing, that’s also easy. Challenge the desperate need for education that we still have in this rich nation and the deluge of simpleton crap that we broadcast and that many just love to imitate. Intelligent conversation would, hopefully, follow improvements along those lines. As it stands, it seems like most folks think it is uncool to project yourself confidently as a person with a brain. Everyone tries to go out of their way to make sure they are seen as non-threatening, or are polar opposite in that they are angrily shouting people down, O’Reilly style. Many are too busy trying to act like a playa, or taking pride in the badge of “redneck”, or are endlessly going on about their less-than-perfect childhood and why it’s to blame for their lack of spine. Conversation, debate, reasoning, they all suffer.
This is not because of religion. It actually hurts religion, in my opinion. After all, how far can one expect to go in understanding a text like the Bible, when one cannot understand that we are in Iraq purely for oil and geostrategical position based on oil concerns (and some cash for the related industries, courtesy of the taxpayer), and not to spread democracy? (can of worms hereby opened).
It’s like a bit from a Paul Simon song. “The music suffers, babe. The music business thrives.” Church coffers may be huge these days, and mega churches are popping up everywhere, and that’s great, but that doesn’t always mean that Christ’s true message is getting through to everyone.
Perhaps those who are “good boys and girls” are inclined to follow rules and be obedient, whether it be to participate in the family religion or not to challenge leadership. The skeptics, the curious, the “bad boys and girls” will question, and challenge, and maybe disbelieve. A healthy and strong faith should be able to accept challenge and debate, but that doesn’t mean that I will accept disrespect and honor a demeaning debate.
To Frank’s lingering question of how atheists can have morality without a relationship to God, here’s your answer.
Another thing that I find interesting about religion is the inherant elitism of the defining of religion. What defines “religion”? What makes Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and even the most recent example, Mormonism religons; but not, say, Haruhi-ism or The Church of the Fonz, or even Jedi? Sure, the orgins of the latter two may be questionable, but what about them disqualifies them as religion? Where’s the rule book that says that a religion has to come from a book or a myth, why can’t it come from, say, a TV show or a movie? What makes those “fake religons”, rather than post-modernist spirituality?
Also, another major problem with militant atheism is that it reenforces the myth that conservatives have a monopoly on spirituality.
Frank DiSalle | Jun 14, 2007 1:19:21 AM
“You do realize that it was really, really stupid of you to post that comment, don’t you, MC23?”
As fucking stupid as you publishing your home address on this blog in a fit of anger (unusual, I know) last year?
“Wishing that people would die is obviously a left wing concept with which I am not familiar.”
Posting your address in a thread and challenging them to a fight is a concept you are familiar with, however, Frank, as you’ve done just that on this blog. Put simply, that makes you the bigger crazy. But hey, that’s self-evident in everyone of your posts.
i see squirrels have good memories too
“I just read that communists and socialists (all atheists to a man) were responsible for about 90 million deaths in the 20th Century.”
Classic. Frank, this is not proof of your assertion that societies need a concept of a supreme being to act morally. Not even remotely. Can you not see that or are you just totally insane?
Classic. Frank, this is not proof of your assertion that societies need a concept of a supreme being to act morally.
frameone, you know what’s classic? You disagreeing with something I didn’t say. This comment was in no way reflective of the preceding comment.
See, I’m wasting my time responding to all this foolishness (like, for example, posting my home address on a blog is “more crazy”, when I never challenged the guy to a fight, and I never called mambochicken23 crazy.
So, you see, I live with your myths and delusions. My point about morality and atheism has never been that atheists can not be moral.
Check again and see. The point was that the atheist had no need to be moral. Rex Mundane’s (I guess that’s his real name, huh) assertion notwithstanding, there is no evidence that morality springs full - blown without a connection to the origin of all things.
Even Matt’s comment about early Chinese religion is incorrect. China’s primitive religions, like India’s, were animistic.
I see squirrel,in perpetuating that myth, has finally confirmed that he is “s”, my psychopathic stalker, who gets the Golden Globe, Oscar, Emmy and the Tony, for the craziest of them all.
I’m not commenting to prove God exists; neither was Oliver. But you atheists have certainly given Oliver a lot of strength to his argument that you are a nasty bunch.
And that’s new. It’s because you can. It’s because “The majority rules — with respect for the minority” has become “The minority whines — and the majority bows”.
Lotsa love here for ol’ Frank
How long did it take Christian-OW-fan to figure that out?
How come you’re not calling him delusional?
If you don’t want to argue with me, then DON’T!
If you really think everything I say is stupid, then IGNORE ME!
Don’t you guys get it?
I make a comment, you respond, I respond…
I can’t respond if you don’t respond. Stop acting like I have an incredible amount of nerve being here, and disagreeing with you.
I am here because I am not a liberal. If you want to talk to each other, and leave me out of the conversation, feel free to do so.
No one is stopping you.
I make a comment, you respond, I respond…
You haven’t responded to my post yet. Just sayin’, maybe you didn’t notice.
Zython: You were not responding to me, and that is why I did not respond to me.
I had responded to two different people who had made the statement that the absence of God, or the absence of heaven or hell, made it necessary for people to be good to one another.
I questioned that, and no one has answered the simple question, “Without the moral authority of a religious institution, without a connection to a Supreme Being, what necessitates right action?”
What disqualifies Haruhi, Fonz, or the Jedi? They possess no obvious super - humanity.
Defining religion is much more difficult
Also, another major problem with militant atheism is that it reinforces the myth that conservatives have a monopoly on spirituality.
It does that, but I believe it is conventional liberalism’s antipathy towards religion that has handed religion over to the conservatives.
You were not responding to me, and that is why I did not respond to me you.
“The point was that the atheist had no need to be moral. Rex Mundane’s (I guess that’s his real name, huh) assertion notwithstanding, there is no evidence that morality springs full - blown without a connection to the origin of all things.”
You just keep getting stupider and stupider — not too mention you keep changing your asertations and your terms as we keep pointing out who fucking stupid you are becoming.
You claim you never said that athiests can’t be moral. I’m going to have to assume then that you believe atheists can act morally.
But when you say that atheists have no need to act morally, are you suggesting that atheists are more likely to act immorally for some reason?
Why don’t atheists need to act morally? If we define morality as a system of behavior for the functioning of a just, equitable society who doesn’t need or even want that?
Or are you talking about being saved in the afterlife for being good in this one?
So humankind is incapable of behaving morally without fear of punishment by some all powerful punishing being (who also loves us)? Fantastic.
Of course, atheists behave morally everyday, Frank. Is that not evidence enough that one need not reference the origin of the universe to act in a moral way?
At the same time, where the fuck do you think the concept of god came from? God? Sorry. We created the concept of god, indeed it sprang not so full-blown from the mind of man and we’ve been tinkering with it every since because, you know, people still act immorally, even those who believe. By your logic there just as much evidence that a concept of god has anything to do with compelling moral behavior.
Fix italics
Would you mind telling who that complex diatribe is for?
I’m obviously (according to you) too stupid to understand it.
Or are you just showing off?
I’m not really interested in what you think I meant, or where you think what you call my logic might take you.
That being said, Let’s see if your comment contains any nuggets of wisdom.
“The point was that the atheist had no need to be moral. Rex Mundane’s (I guess that’s his real name, huh) assertion notwithstanding, there is no evidence that morality springs full - blown without a connection to the origin of all things.”
[Y]ou keep changing your assertions and your terms as we keep pointing out how fucking stupid you are becoming.
Nope. I have not changed my view since Jun 13, 2007 5:38:21 AM
You claim you never said that atheists can’t be moral. I’m going to have to assume then that you believe atheists can act morally.
So far, so good.
But when you say that atheists have no need to act morally, are you suggesting that atheists are more likely to act immorally for some reason?
Nope. Not at all.
Why don’t atheists need to act morally? If we define morality as a system of behavior for the functioning of a just, equitable society who doesn’t need or even want that?
The significant phrase is “If we define morality as a system of behavior for the functioning of a just, equitable society”. Who determined what was “just” and “equitable” in our Constitution? Blackstone? King John at Runnymede? Justinian? Hammurabi? Ramses?
At some point in time we can presume that men and women possessed a Code. Archaeologists assess sites as human habitats by looking for injured and wounded people who were not abandoned. These symbolize that the dignity of an individual is being recognized. They look for a burial to keep the corpse safe, and burial with important keepsakes, and sometimes flowers for the deceased to take to the “next world”.
Or are you talking about being saved in the afterlife for being good in this one?
Religion had its origin in magic and superstition. When a person has bad luck in a preliterate, preindustrial society, they look back to his last “offense” against this or that god or gods. This is then blamed as the source of the bad luck.
From this come the idea that “misfortune follows the gods’ displeasure”.
So humankind is incapable of behaving morally without fear of punishment…
I could fall back on the paradigm described above — misbehavior displeases God, or the gods — but I won’t. My question is, “What would compel a non believer to behave morally (leaving reward or punishment from above out of the picture)?”
What would stop my neighbor from stealing my car? Or spending two weeks swimming in my pool, while I’m vacation?
Of course, atheists behave morally everyday, Frank. Is that not evidence enough that one need not reference the origin of the universe to act in a moral way?
Actually, no. It is only evidence that to a certain degree, many religious prescriptions and proscriptions have been incorporated into secular law.
One recent example of the undoing of that connection is the widespread abolition of “Blue Laws”.
We created the concept of god, indeed it sprang not so full-blown from the mind of man.
Yo