Firstly, you should save your indignation for Harris and Dawkins who love to generalize about how religion in "general" is dangerous. I mean you're against generalizations, right? If you can't manage to raise the slightest criticism of their vitriol and wild generalizations about religion, it is difficult for me to take you seriously here.
Secondly, did I mention you in there? I never said all atheists. If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't worry about it because I'm not talking about you.
The fact is there is a real atheistic agenda going on here. Recently, I have been told that religion is the cause of misery in the world today. All religions pose a "danger" to society, yet the only time my life was threatened online was by the atheist mercury. I've been told that Evangelicals want to form a theocracy, yet the only evidence I see is an attempt to make a secular government in the spirit of Lenin and Stalin. The popular atheists aren't shy about praising these tyrants for their intolerance of religion. So what's wrong with pointing it out?
How many times have we seen atheists throw the crusades up in our face? And how many times have you complained to them about bad generalizations? Not saying you haven't, only that I don't recall if you have.
Atheists here love to throw up the crusades and/or inquisition as "evidence" of some kind, yet the second we point out Lenin or Stalin, people get all indignant about it. That is a double standard.
Now this is another over-generalization I'd like to see backed up with something solid.
I know you don't think theists in America today are planning to enforce religion on the general public. You're too smart for that.
But that has been the insinuation by several conspiracy whacko atheists like JAK. Yet, I just provided clear evidence that some of the leading atheists like Harris and Hitchens would have no complaint with America becoming like the Soviet Union. For them religion is worse than rape, for crying out loud. That religionists should have their freedom taken away, is the overwhelming inference here. How could it be understood any other way?
I am skeptical that, during the various periods in which one religion sought to convert others at the point of a sword, atheists would have been excepted.
You're talking about Islam in medieval times. I am talking about religion in modern western civilization. We see a strive for secularism by the fringe atheists who are actually having their way in the political arena, even though they represent a tiny minority. Yet, I'm suppose dto believe Evangelicals are secretly plotting to take over the country and create a theocracy, because JAK's got "links"?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
The first comment is from notorious atheist Sam Harris and the second from notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens.
The Harris comment is from an interview with Bethany Saltman, who published it in the september 2006 issue of Sun Magazine in an article called, "The Temple of Reason, Sam Harris on How Religion puts the World at Risk"
The Hitchens comment is from an interview with PBS in an episode called "Heaven on Earth, the Rise and Fall of Socialism."
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Is atheism in and of itself a "belief system"?
...
What I have argued is that some atheists have actually created a religion of their own.
Perhaps the most tiresome nonsensical claim ever. For someone who harps on the intellectuality of other I'm surprised you'd trot this old dog out. Doublethink anyone?
dartagnan wrote:The first comment is from notorious atheist Sam Harris and the second from notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens.
The Harris comment is from an interview with Bethany Saltman, who published it in the september 2006 issue of Sun Magazine in an article called, "The Temple of Reason, Sam Harris on How Religion puts the World at Risk"
The Hitchens comment is from an interview with PBS in an episode called "Heaven on Earth, the Rise and Fall of Socialism."
I know who they are from, but do you really have the September 2006 issue of Sun Magazine on your shelf and PBS special on Socialism on your TiVo, or do you have a link to the christian website that you found these ?
Just so we can read things in the right context... It almost sounds as if you are trying to make an interesting accusation - maybe even the theme for a new TV special: When Atheists Attack...
[quote="Tarski"]Tal,
you said that Marxism was a fundamentally non-theist ideology.
---Yes
Well, look, I could start up any ideology, one that promotes interspecies sex or racism or anything and then say that it was fundamentally non-theist--I might even make a charter or constitution declaring it so--but would it be really?
---In my judgment, any ideology which contains a central tenet that theistic belief is a fraud, and further, that it inhibits the glorious voyage toward heaven on earth, I would characterize as fundamentally non-theist. Wouldn't you?
I could say it, and I guess the Marxists did say it, to some extent.
---Indeed, mon frere.
Certainly we grew up hearing how the Marxists were enemies of God and that it was all about atheism. But what if both the Marxists themselves and the John Birchers were just wrong. What if Marxism and Stalinism are not really in any way fundamentally atheistic despite claims from both sides? What were the arguments? How did marxism really follow from atheism?
---I'm not sure that Marxism "followed" from atheism; it is that one of the premises on which Marxism rested was that religion in effected opiated people, and inhibited the march to progress. In this sense, it was fundamentally non-theist and also fundamentally antagonistic to "religion", strictly defined (that is, as a theist ideology realized in earthly institutions, etc.)
Come to think of it, Stalinism looks an awful lot like just an alternative theism in a sense, with Stalin playing the role of god.
---Of course...but here we get into the terrain of a fallacy of equivocation which, in my opinion, many non-theists make (not you necessarily). When criticizing "religion", they focus actually on "theist religion". But when it is then pointed out that many of the criticisms they make of (theist) religion apply also to non-theist ideologies, they simply say, "well...Soviet communism (or National Socialism, or whatever) was basically 'religious', too". And then they move right on as if that was no problem at all.
But it is a problem, and a very serious one. It is a serious problem because it reveals that whether there is some supernatural god posited by the "life-giving myth" is ultimately irrelevant. And this is crucial because usually, their entire previous argument has maintained that it IS relevant - which means it is quite wrong.
Well, you might then claim that the inquisition, and the crusades were also not really fundamentally theistic. Or, even that Chrisitanity or Islam is not really fundamentally theistic.
---I would say (this is one of my main points here) that human history, and all we know about the human psyche, suggests that when it comes to human evil, or cosmological narratives which moral implications, it is irrelevant whether it is theist or not. And for what it's worth, I think guys like Eric Hoffer, Adorno, Mannheim, Eysenck, and D.S. Wilson would agree with me.
"We have met the enemy, and it is us". Whether we are theists trying to defend theism by saying "well, what they did wasn't 'true' religion", or non-theists imagining that they've identified the "root" of the problem in what they call "religious belief", we would be wrong, I suggest. Both misidentify the root of human evil. It is within us, within our psyches, within our instincts as social, hierarchical animals, within our desperation to find meaning, to matter, to "locate" ourselves cosmologically, within a hundred parts of ourselves...sown into our very natures. It isn't within, or without, any particular belief one way or the other about a god, or eight gods, or no gods; and I'm suggesting that to think otherwise, is very naïve (but also very flattering to the ego of NTs, which may give a partial explanation as to why this misidentification currently enjoys such popularity).
Maybe,... but its sounds less plausible to me.
If you grant me that the Bible or Koran really are God's word, then I think a few terrible things really do follow!
---You and I might say so; but consider a few points, Tarski.
"A few terrible things" DON'T follow in the minds of a whole range of people, no matter how specific the premises are, and even no matter how true a person believes those premises to be. Think of it this way, referring back to our earlier discussion about inductive versus deductive logic.
Inductive logic is sometimes criticized because it doesn't allow for "certain" conclusions. But all that has to happen (and it does happen very often in reality) for deductive logic - say, a common syllogism - to be, for all intents and purposes in the same boat, is for a human being to deny a conclusion.
Take my mother, for example. My mother once told me that even if:
P1). Joseph Smith lied about having "golden plates"; P2.) Joseph Smith lied about visiting with Jesus and God; P3.) Joseph Smith lied about being "ordained to the priesthood" by a back-from-the-dead Peter, James, and John;
that "the church would still be true".
One disconcerting fact of human psychology is that a human being can opt out, for no good reason whatsoever, of a chain of reasoning, of an "iron-clad" syllogism, at any point they feel like it. They have that power. It may even be true to say that they may have that need. My mother, for example, may have had the deep, primal, emotional NEED to simply deny what, to us, is logically undeniable. And, she may also have had the need to not recognize that.
Each of us has that potential, and even now as I type this, I am not sure what I may be wrong about, that my conscious mind is telling me I've figured out.
What I'm saying is, neither rules of logic themselves, nor beliefs one way or the other about a god, are enough to come close to identifying some root of evil. Another way of saying this is that theist or religious beliefs in general, seem no more "beneficial" or "malicious" than non-theist or non-religious beliefs. In both, we see expressions of just the same sorts of seeds which exist within all of us...and whether actions or beliefs lead to good or evil seems to have nothing to do with whether they're theist or non-theist. Much has to do with our own personalities, our own minds.
The Dawkin's style atheists are atheists on the basis of opposition to nonevidence based beliefs and the fact that the scripture of most Abrahamic religions look very violent, intolerant, backward, and bellicose by modern moral standards.
He would also be opposed to belief in any other unsupported claim or totalitarian idea, or person that demanded worship--be it Jesus or Stalin or Franko or our alien overlords. If either the very existence of the person/entity or the claims or powers of a real person are unsupported then that is to be opposed.
---Well, I hope he "would" say that. One problem is that he very rarely, if ever, says that.
Imagine a Stalinist saying "I am killing you because I don't believe in God or religion" or "because my lack of belief in god demands it".
Now imagine a suicide bomber, or an Osama bin Ladin type declaring that they kill because of God's holy command. Or an abortion clinic bomber. Or how about sharia law?
Somehow I believe the second guy more than the first. The first one just sounds somehow "off" or disingenuous. The second guy means it. Plus I don't see the point of arguing with the second guy. He will just appeal to faith and to a holy book. The Marxist has to at least attempt to argue on the basis of reason (fail though he might).
---I don't think this last point is true AT ALL...My experience is that non-theist "true believers" are NO more rational than theist "true believers".
Which guy you might believe perhaps says more about you than about the minds of potential murderers...I find Dostoyevsky's account of Raskolnikov's (in "Crime and Punishment") just as believable given all I understand about my own psyche, and all I have observed in others or read in the research, as I do an account about an Islamic suicide bomber. And I find the "logic" behind, say, the Khmer Rouge's atrocities similarly understandable.
In any case, in today's world, I am afraid of religion more than nonreligion--just as a matter of personal observation of the situation.
Zealously religious people scare me a bit and atheists don't scare me. I am not claiming this is a good or reasonable thing about me, its just true right now.
---I can see that, given the state of the world at the moment. But thirty years ago, perhaps we might have felt differently.
Is atheism dangerous?
---I would say that the roots of danger go a lot deeper than any suffix ("ism"). Whether any one human, or group of humans, has some particular belief one way or the other about whether there's a god is no immunity from the worst parts of our natures finding expression.
If someone claimed they had an ideology based on atheism I wouldn't even know what the hell they meant. An ideology should be based on something positive, like an evidence based ideology, or an ideology of love or tolerance or fair distribution of wealth or democracy or capitalism.
Perhaps the most tiresome nonsensical claim ever. For someone who harps on the intellectuality of other I'm surprised you'd trot this old dog out. Doublethink anyone?
Tiresome? You act like you've heard this before. By whom?
Well, I'm afraid this doesn't count as a valid counterargument. You haven't dealt with the evidence I presented - no one has to be frank - and you don't seem to understand what religion is. There are many non-theistic contexts where organized agendas act exactly as organized religions; so much so that the only glaring difference between them is the difference in dogma. But you'd have to know something about the sociology to understand that.
And I didn't say atheism itself is a belief system. I clearly said it wasn't. But some atheists use their atheism as a reason to behave religiously. There are many atheists who stay out of the controversies (i.e. beastie), but there are others who become politically active, join or even form atheistic organizations, create their own mission statements, agenda, goals, dogma, etc. They end up looking exactly like a zealous Christian who is out to convert others. I mean does anyone really think Dawkins' agenda isn't a missionary agenda? He is trying to convert people to his own belief system or religion of scientism. That is his way of getting rid of religion. You might argue that he is just trying to educate, but that is precisely the argument missionaries make. And the man has been shown to be out of his gourd on topics he has no buisness speaking on, so the "education" is really a matter of perspective.
I know who they are from, but do you really have the September 2006 issue of Sun Magazine on your shelf and PBS special on Socialism on your TiVo, or do you have a link to the christian website that you found these ?
If they were found on a website, then you wouldn't have asked me where they came from; unless you're just trying to pull a marg maneuver. I haven't found them on the web, and that isn't where I got them. I got them from a book called the "Irrational Atheist." Do you want page numbers? Do I need to take a snapshot of the page with my webcam and post it here for you to believe me?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
While I agree with many of your points (such as the fact that religious belief is likely hard-wired into the species), what I really object to is the generalizing tone of your criticisms. "Nontheists NEVER TIRE of..." "New Testament's often distinguish"....and, of course, asking nontheists to defend Dawkins.
---I thought this might come up...I don't know how I can get around those sorts of generalizations. In my experience, that generalization is valid. I acknowledge that not all atheists/non-theists say the same sorts of things
Please, please, would you recognize that "nontheists" (I prefer atheists) are united by only one thing - lack of belief in a god. We have no leader who speaks for us. Period.
---I understand that; but comments made by the most prominent atheists are often regurgitated by everyday folks...and my point is that I find many of those comments flawed.
Obviously you, and some others, have specific bones to pick with specific atheists. How about addressing your bones in specific terms instead of the sweeping generalizations behind which I strongly doubt you have solid data? What you appear to be doing is listening to some high-profile athiest authors, like Dawkins and Hitchens, and acting as if you have good reason to believe THEY fairly represent "nontheists" in general. I strongly object to that.
---Well, in part you are correct, but at the same time, I've chatted with loads of people about religious things, and I tend to hear the same sorts of arguments by both theists and atheists, including the ones I've listed here.
Other than that, it seems to me the underlying question is whether or not theism - aside from religion - is inherently dangerous. Personally, I don't think it is - and I don't think I'm unusual for an atheist, either. Every time this comes up, it seems to me just as many atheists object to that proposition as support it... which is why I so strongly object to Tal's generalizations.
---Beastie - I wish then that more atheists would tell Richard Dawkins to go back to the drawing board with his dumb comments on religion. Thomas Hobbes was MILES ahead of him four centuries ago. But as it is, there's a horrible fawning all over the guy.
Don't believe me? Want specifics? Here you go.
Michael Shermer - who, incidentally, I am a big fan of - sounds about as sycophantic as some Relief Society president introducing an apostle at stake conference talking about Dawkins in "Skeptic" magazine (Vol. 13, No. 2). Listen to this:
"The prize ceremony was followed by a brilliant acceptance speech by Richard, who never fails to deliver in his role as a public intellectual (the number ONE public intellectual in England, according to "Prospect" magazine) and spokesperson for the public understanding of science. This is not what impressed me most about Richard, however, since any professional would be expected to shine in a public forum...It was during the two full days of round-table discussions, breakout sessions, fishbowl debates, and (most interestingly) coffee-break chats, where Richard stood out head-and-shoulders above this august crowd. Despite his reputation as a massive egotist, Richard is, in fact, somewhat shy and quiet, a man who listens carefully, thinks through what he wants to say, and then says it with an economy of words that is a model for any would-be opinion editorialist".
(...)
"As an intellectual social movement with which I am involved, skepticism is subject to the same hierarchical social forces. As such, we scientists and skeptics look up to and model ourselves after our alpha leaders. (Dawkins and others) are candles in the darkness of our demon-haunted world...Thank the fates and his hearty DNA that we still have Richard, who stands as a beacon of scientific skepticism and a hero to skeptics around the world.......Here we see almost no limits to the breadth of Richard's interests..."Richard turned to me and said, 'All of this makes me so proud of our species that it almost brings me to tears'. I can only echo the same sentiment about the works and words of Richard Dawkins". (!)
If atheists aren't bound by anything more than non-belief in God, then why don't more of them talk about how ludicrous Dawkins's view of religion is? I don't know of any prominent atheists other than LSE philosopher John Gray talking about how daft Dawkins sounds on religion.
Where, pray tell, are all these "independent atheist thinkers"?
dartagnan wrote:If they were found on a website, then you wouldn't have asked me where they came from; unless you're just trying to pull a marg maneuver. I haven't found them on the web, and that isn't where I got them. I got them from a book called the "Irrational Atheist." Do you want page numbers? Do I need to take a snapshot of the page with my webcam and post it here for you to believe me?
No Kevin, I just want to find them for myself and read the context, since Harris is my one of my favorite writers. It also sounds like a sound byte that one would find on a Christian website. I'm cool on the page numbers, I believe you, I'll just look a little harder online to find the full quote.