Wonderings

Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers
Touche!posted 01/17/2008 at 10:29:03
Touche!posted 01/17/2008 at 06:46:26
Nice, Dap. You echo a question I posed to a True Believer on Huffpo long ago : if you woke up tomorrow and realized that god did not exist, would you cease to be a moral person? Would you steal and kill and trample your neighbors flowers just because the threat of a supernatural spanking had been taken away? I now add your idea to that question : if you woke up tomorrow without god, would that song you sing along to in your car every morning move you any less? Would you not still lose yourself in a painting? In fact, you would come to love your fellow human beings even more. Suddenly you realize, "A human being created that. A human being moved me to tears with their song or painting." Muse, you often cite Milton, et al., as examples of the positive influence of Christianity on Western civilization. Is it not possible that what you are actually praising is the innate creativity, brilliance, and beauty of human beings. As far as I know, god never held a paint brush or strummed a guitar.posted 01/16/2008 at 09:42:00
I know - God doesn't have much of a sense of humor, does he? posted 01/16/2008 at 09:25:11
Sorry, the first post wasn't coming up, so I repeated it. There oughta be some way to edit your own posts after they are sent.posted 01/15/2008 at 20:32:20
Interesting, isn't it, how two implacable foes such as we (just kidding) can sometimes come together in agreement. You believe that these books will have less relevance in 10 years because they are wrong. I believe these books will have less relevance in 10 years because THERE IS NO NEW ATHEISM MOVEMENT.posted 01/15/2008 at 20:16:38
Interesting, isn't it, how two implaccable foes such as we (just kidding) can come together in agreement. You believe that these books will be less relevant in 10 years because they are wrong. I believe these books will be less relevant in 10 years because THERE IS NO NEW ATHEISM MOVEMENT.We (the author and those posting comments) are a community deeply concerned about these questions. It is easy for us to become myopic. While we debate the coming "great struggle" between atheism and religion in the 21st century, a leading candidate for president in the GOP is Mike Huckabee. Joe Six-pack doesn't even know who Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens are. I think we are in danger of missing the forest for the trees. It bears repeating: THERE IS NO NEW ATHEISM MOVEMENT.posted 01/15/2008 at 19:25:30
Aargh! I mangled the second paragraph under "1. Atheists". The last sentence should read, "...and second, what she represented seems more like a cult-of-personality than atheism."Take heed all ye who would comment: Author, proof-read thyself.posted 01/15/2008 at 11:44:50
Prof. Wilson,In the spirit of proposing questions and possible solutions, I hope you will indulge me:Q1) Is New Atheism a movement?Q2) If it is not a movement, can it be a religion?For an idea to become a movement, it must have leaders and followers. You have identified the leaders (the holy triumvirate), but who are the followers? They would seem to originate from two populations, which we shall now consider:1. Atheists (those who do not believe in a supernatural entity). Do atheists in general champion Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens as the voices of leadership? If so, what evidence is there to support this? It can't be the fact that their books are best-sellers - Harry Potter books sell better, yet no one is making the claim that "Potterism" is a movement. And yes, other atheists do defend these authors on Huffpo (and elsewhere) when under attack. But can these defenders be said to be followers? Are their world-views or daily activities significantly changed by these books?I mean, I'm a card carrying member of my local atheist lodge (tee hee) and I go to all the meetings and rallies, but I never see a "Dawkins for President" button on any lapels. Atheists are largely individuals that would seem best suited for identifying blind faith movements - I don't think they will fall into lockstep with anyone. You mentioned Ayn Rand in your first article - first, her "movement" can hardly be said to have been terribly influential, and second, what she was represented seems more like an Earth-bound cult-of-personality than atheism.2. True Believers (those who believe in a supernatural entity). Do you honestly believe that hordes of religionists are going to convert to atheism on the strength of these books? Can we dispense with this possibility?So where's the movement? Messrs D., H., and H. are provocative - they stir the pot. But in 5 years, 10 years, will anyone cite these books as still influential? We shall see...posted 01/15/2008 at 10:47:53
I was writing this in haste. The line, "But this only works if Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens truly constitute all of atheistic thought." should read, "But this only works if Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens have undue influence over atheistic thought."Remember that the intent of these authors is to be provocative. They are not writing for the consumption of other atheists - we don't need to be told why it's good to be an atheist, we already are. I don't think their books are best-sellers based on the buying power of atheists in the US.posted 01/14/2008 at 23:30:09
Wow, I am not that well-read in evolutionary biology (a shortcoming I must correct), so I had no idea that Messrs Wilson and Dawkins have a history of dispute outside of their views on atheism. Could this all be due to the disagreement between the gene-based vs. group-selection camps? H1, above, would suggest that. Which is not to suggest that Wilson's evolutionary views are wrong - how would I know? But it does color the argument differently.posted 01/14/2008 at 18:28:40
Too true. One of the problems with positing a supernatural is that the supernatural, if it existed, would be totally unknowable. As soon as the supernatural tried to reveal itself in nature, it would become observable and measurable. Even if the clouds parted and a Monty-Python-esque face appeared and commanded us all to bow before him, what would that prove? That a being with the ability to part clouds and yell really loud existed?All a miracle is, is an effect for which we currently lack knowledge of a cause.posted 01/14/2008 at 15:01:46
Nicely put. Another term for this is anthropomorphizing - "If bad things happen to me, then somebody in control must have it out for me." For primitive human beings, that thinking may have helped to temporarily plug holes in their understanding. You can imagine how such thinking would lead to behavior that attempted to appease the gods - animal sacrifice, body modification, diet, prayer. For modern human beings, anthropomorphizing the universe amounts to navel-gazing - "The universe cares about ME."posted 01/14/2008 at 14:49:50
Excellent! I like your approach, and agree with most of your ideas. I would like to see you address a few of the following issues, however:I still think you are confusing atheism as a specific idea about the existence of god with the statements of just THREE strongly opinionated authors. If you had said, "Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens are trying to establish a stealth religion", and backed it up with examples, then you might have an argument. But atheism didn't start with these three. It's like disagreeing with the methods of Al Sharpton, then using that opinion to make the blanket statement that the Civil Rights movement has gone off the rails.If atheism is a stealth religion, which of these explanations works for atheism? What you seem to be identifying as a religion in this article, is the belief in supernatural agents. This differs from your use of the term when you label atheism a stealth religion - there, if I read you right, a religion is any set of beliefs that inform our world-view. "Ah," you say, "What about H2? Are not Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens profiting from atheism?" But this only works if Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens truly constitute all of atheistic thought.Who decided that these six explanations for the existence of religion are the only possible ones? For that matter, why are each of these six plausible? You don't like it when others make definite pronouncements about religion, so why are your six choices more valid then others? I've got to run. More later...posted 01/14/2008 at 13:38:32
"I Know I'm Right, So Why Be Fair?"
You said, "That is why we call people like him a fundamentalist atheist ..."No, you call Dawkins a fundamentalist atheist because it makes a convenient sound-bite and confuses the argument. I dismiss the existence of Santa Claus out of hand - does that make me a fundamentalist "anti-Santa-ist"? Do I have to prove the non-existence of Santa? Dawkins is a STRONGLY OPINIONATED atheist, not a fundamentalist atheist. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. But its a waste of pixels to argue this point anymore. Let me leave you with this: if the existence of god were somehow proven to all human beings, and if someone then continued to deny the existence of god, THAT would be a fundamentalist atheist.posted 01/13/2008 at 20:22:14
Hey, HS! Yep, Sheldrake finds what he expects to find. For a brief, critical blurb about Sheldrake, check out the Skeptics Dictionary at skepdics.com.posted 01/13/2008 at 20:07:05
Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real
By your own admission, you do not believe in an external, a priori god. Parse it any way you want, that means you have willfully chosen a belief system based on what you know to be a fiction. I don't have words for what I feel about this - it's like staring into the void. How can god be either end of a metaphor if god doesn't exist? You are not using god as a metaphor - you're simply attaching the word "god" to things.And a culture-myth you know to be baseless is called a fairy-tale.Consider these questions:Where will you go when you die? Metaphorical heaven? Mythical heaven? Do you pray? To whom (or what) do you pray? "Oh, Holy Metaphor, we beseech thee..."What is the source of your morality? A figure of speech? A desert fairy-tale set down by primitives 2000 years ago?Why have you chosen to believe in a myth you know to be a fantasy? Convenience? Peer pressure? To get a job promotion? And then you imply that many (most?) modern Christians share your definition of god. I hope not. I would not want to live in a world which exhibited such mass psychosis.I think I'm going to avoid Huffpo for a while. Coming back here to debate with people who willing adopt a fiction as their world-view makes me queasy.HeevenSteven, good luck. Keep up the good fight.posted 01/08/2008 at 01:03:22
You may be right, but I think it's something else. I think Mr. Wilson is objecting to a few strongly opinionated atheist authors citing science and reason in their books about atheism. Period. Like our friend, Zanti, he wants atheism to be a simple skeptical response to theism - the only thing atheists are allowed to say is, "Prove it." Then they are never allowed to say anything more on the subject.This is an attempt to close off atheism as a cognitive dead end. But no claim exists in a vacuum. A perfectly legitimate question for any atheist is, "OK, there is no god. Now what are the implications of that fact? And, why is the god concept so prevalent in human beings?" Are atheists not allowed to speculate on that? Mr. Wilson seems to be of the opinion that any use of science or reason, beyond simply saying "Prove it", is outside the bounds of atheistic thought, and constitutes a "stealth" religion when it appears.posted 01/07/2008 at 10:01:17
Yes, Zanti is an atheist who is afraid of admitting it. This is a direct quote from our friend Z (see our debate below): "If the belief in a god or gods is literal--i.e., if we truly believe in an invisible being pulling the marionette strings of eternity, then we're making one hell of a fantastic claim, yes.I, on the other hand, claim (along with a great many Christians) that God is a metaphor, a culture-wide myth, a human construct."And, most odd of all:"By the way, when atheists ask me the standard 'Why don't you believe in Zeus?' question, I respond that Zeus isn't the popular god of the moment."So apparently, Zanti's religious belief is based on numbers - if fewer people in the US believed in the Christian god, then he would also stop believing in that god. Weird, no?Zanti's thinking seems dangerous to me. Such people are easily swayed by ANY culture-wide myth, like fascism. Am I being to harsh?posted 01/07/2008 at 09:42:30
I sat at my computer for 10 minutes after reading your comment not knowing what to say. All this time you've been defending something you KNOW to be a fairy-tale just because it is widely popular. It's like believing in Harry Potter just because so many people have read the book. You actually admit, "By the way, when atheists ask me the standard 'Why don't you believe in Zeus?' question, I respond that Zeus isn't the popular god of the moment." And if Bozo the Clown was the popular god of the moment, you would be a Bozo-ian? Probably go around with a big red nose and a Seltzer bottle just to prove your faith.If god is just a culture-wide myth, then what do you REALLY think will happen to you when you die? What is the ultimate source of your morality? Did Jesus actually live - and if so, was he divine? I don't deny that a myth can contain certain truths about the human condition. Myths can be an effective way of conveying information (Little Red Ridinghood probably started out as a cautionary tale about little girls trusting strangers). But even if everyone else thinks they are true, YOU are your own person. Based on sales of the Weekly World News, belief in UFOS and Bigfoot and Batboy is pretty wide-spread in our culture - do you believe in these, too?If belief in god were to drop below 50% in the US population, would you give it up as well? It could hardly be considered to be culture-wide at that point. If you moved to a Muslim country, would you start believing in Allah? Here are some other culture-wide and historically common traits of human beings:SexismRacismChild AbuseRapeViolenceHow many of these will you adopt as your own just because they seem intrinsic to the human condition?I must say that I am done with this "debate". I've got more important things to do.posted 01/07/2008 at 06:20:47
"On what basis can it make that claim?"I think I addressed that in the paragraph that followed. But just to be clear: religions require their adherents to base their world-view on fantasy (i.e., the belief that the phenomena of nature are due to unseen chimeras). THAT IS IRRATIONAL. Yes, the antithesis of religion is reason. If atheism is the rejection of religion, then atheism can lay claim to that which religion is not."...your brand of atheism..."What? How many types are there? " 'Their position (singular)'? Which would be...?"That the supernatural (gods, uber-mind, Santa) exists. Simple enough?"No, not unless you're making the same assertion. When I said that the burden of proof works both ways, I mean that it applies to the respective claims of both sides."You lost me here. OK, I don't believe in Santa. Is the burden of proof on me? Why do you not see the analogy? Let's say you're bald. You reveal this fact by saying, "I do not have hair." Would it not be absurd of me to say, "No. You have hair. It's just bald hair." Why do you get to say, "No. You have a belief system. It's just unbelief belief."posted 01/06/2008 at 23:05:19
You agree with me! Your words: "A skeptical stance does not constitute a belief system that is in any way equivalent to the claim being challenged. ...In a perfect world, atheism functions totally (or primarily) as a skeptical response to claims made on the behalf of religion. It does not share the burden of proof attached to religious claims so long as it addresses those claims without making *equivalent* counter-claims of its own."That's the whole ball of wax. That's the point I've been trying to make. Thank you.You may find this astonishing, but I have never read anything written by Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens about atheism. Not because I dismiss them out of hand, but I've never felt the need to. As another commenter mentioned on Huffpo recently, I do not need anyone to tell me how to be an atheist - I already am. Now, if particular claims made by any of these authors in their books seem questionable, then of course you may bring up those points for debate. If Dawkins has made the claim that religion is a virus (and is not just using that phrase as a metaphor), then you have every right to expect him to back it up. But you have made a blanket statement about atheism (it being a belief system) that you now seem to want to restrict to particular claims made by a few atheist authors. It occurs to me that what you may actually be claiming is that EVERY human thought requires some level of "belief" - that truth is subjective, and any external truths (if they exist) are ultimately unknowable. Fair enough, but I think that takes us far afield of the current discussion. As HeevenSteven has pointed out (somewhere along this chain of commentary), we may need to define our terms more clearly. As HS has also mentioned, I'm starting to get a headache, too.posted 01/06/2008 at 22:35:53
Wow, it's right here: "Why demand proof for one and not the other? Because the first claim is fantastic and, if true, requires that we alter our universal perspective just a tad."And belief in gods is not fantastic? Why not?posted 01/06/2008 at 22:06:29
You're right, I should have left predestination off the list. Not only is it not something to be condemned over, but predestination (and the related topic of free will) is still an open question (and probably will always be).Free will may very well be an illusion. Personally speaking, I hope not. But consider the following example: A woman is standing in front of an open closet full of blouses. Choosing which one she will wear today may seem like a perfect example of the exercise of free will. And yet, so many pre-existing conditions can influence that choice : the woman's mood, her favorite color, the length of her arm, whether she is right-handed or left-handed, etc. The sensation of free will may be nothing more than the inability to determine the probability of each potential outcome - either because too many variables effecting the situation are at work, or because some of those variables are unknown to the chooser.posted 01/06/2008 at 21:48:41
I don't know how well read you are regarding Augustine and his times, but the young Earth idea was controversial even then. The Greeks and others already believed in a much older Earth.You haven't addressed Augustine's polemics against the Manichaeans, which is the position I find most troubling. Are you not aware of the RC church's views on this matter? Labelling a group of people Manichaeans (even long after the last follower of Mani could be found in the West) was a very serious charge, and usually led to persecution. We largely have your boy A to thank for that.posted 01/06/2008 at 20:14:36
Augustine of Hippo was a full-fledged Manichaean who CONVENIENTLY converted back to his mother's Christianity in 387 AD. Why conveniently, you ask? Because in 382, the Roman emperor, who was beginning to come under the sway of the Christians, declared that Manichaeans should be put to death.Augustine then proceeded to severely attack the Manichaeans in his writings. Those writings became RC doctrine right up until our time. Those writings led directly to the later persecution of the Bogomils, Cathars, and others accused by the RC church of being Manichaeans. (The crusade against the Cathars in southern France was particularly cruel and bloody).In addition, from Augustine we have such nonsense as:young Earth creationism (the Earth is less than 6000 years old), original sin (he believed that unbaptized babies go to hell), and predestination (i.e., the opposite of free will - although the RC church did one of its frequent "move-the-goal-posts" contortions to say that, no, Augustine really did believe in free will after all).In my estimation, Augustine was a nut.posted 01/06/2008 at 02:07:51
You say, "Atheism IS a belief system--the 'absence of belief isn't belief' idea is nonsense."In other words, the absence of belief IS belief.And, the absence of pain is pain. The absence of fear is fear. The absence of love is love. Ridiculous enough, yet?Let's use an analogy: Suppose the belief in the existence of fairies is called "fairy-ism". Most of my neighbors are devout "fairy-ists". If I do not believe in fairies, then I would be an "a-fairy-ist". Now are you going to argue that refusing to acknowledge the existence of fairies is a belief system equivalent to "fairy-ism"?See, the problem with leaving the belief-door open for one type of fantasy character (god) is that the door must then stay open for EVERY other fantasy. If I am not allowed to challenge the belief that god exists, then I must also respect the belief in: human beings being the descendents of space aliens, reality being nothing more than the dream of a cosmic sleeper, Chopra's uber-mind, and every other crazy idea that human beings have ever concocted about the supernatural. By your argument, none of them can be proven, and none of them can be disproven. They are all perfect and unassailable. The only alternative is to prove that your personal god concept is somehow different from all other belief. posted 01/05/2008 at 22:22:14
Well of course an INDIVIDUAL can be an atheist and irrational at the same time. But I see nothing wrong with ATHEISM laying claim to (pure) reason. At its core, atheism says one thing: god (i.e., the supernatural) does not exist. If atheists in general adopt this idea, it logically follows that atheists will view religions as irrational - i.e., religions require their adherents to base their world-view on fantasy (i.e., the phenomena of nature are due to unseen chimeras). And because atheists wish to differentiate themselves from these god-based belief systems, they will want to claim rational thinking (at least in this arena) as their own.I think any atheist would be swayed by a religionist if the religionist would provide just one scrap of empirical evidence for their position. One scrap. Atheists are not close-minded dogmatists, contrary to this author's view and your own. In fact, most of us arrived at our conclusions by examining the notion of god with honesty, openness, and intelligence. I.e., we thought about it.And the burden of proof argument... come on. My 3-year-old is firmly convinced that a fat man in a red suit comes into our house every Dec 25th to leave toys behind. I won't disavow him of this belief for a few more years, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong (especially when I look at my post-holiday bank account). Now I view belief in god as being no different from belief in Santa (two all-powerful fantasy characters who bestow or withhold rewards based on the perceived behavior of their minions). But by your argument, the burden of proof as to the existence of Santa lies on both my child and ME. Get it?posted 01/05/2008 at 19:24:29
Wow. I have re-read this post many times, and I have no idea what you are trying to say.Let's take this: "I clearly define a stealth religion as any belief system that distorts the facts of the real world (yes, there is a real world out there, and it does not include people sitting on clouds) for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors." Now how in the world does atheism (which you label a stealth religion) distort the facts of the real world? Are you implying that the existence of gods is a proveable fact, and atheism distorts this? I am at a loss.Then this gem, "There are impeccable reasons for distrusting statements cloaked in the authority of science and reason, no less than the flag and the cross." I am stunned. If you're going to toss science and reason into the irrational-belief-system pot with religion and nationalism, then we might as well go back to living in caves. Do you even know what science is? This is EXACTLY the argument used by religionists to attack atheism. Then the weirdest of all, "No, I am not accusing the New Atheists of having a hidden fascist agenda, but..." Oh, what an old trick, the back-hand compliment. It's a favorite ploy of unscrupulous politicians - "Now I'm not sayin my opponent is a womanizing commie, but..."You, of course, will paint this as a New Atheist (whatever that is) attack, but I must say you come across as an agnostic, not an atheist. What are you really asking of atheists? - tolerance of religion? keep our minds open to the supernatural? keep quiet and sit on our hands? I just don't understand a self-described atheist claiming atheism constitutes a religion - the very thing he supposedly rejects. Somebody help me out here - am I missing something?In the end, what seems to motivate your argument is anger at other prominent atheists for being too strongly opinionated. Did they steal your thunder? Get over it.posted 01/05/2008 at 01:59:06
The "Soul Hypothesis"
Deepak, do you know what a cirular argument is? You say, "Behave as if you have a soul. Do this for long enough time to gather evidence that your hypothetical soul does in fact correspond to reality as you experience it." So by analogy I could do this for other personal beliefs: "Behave as if you are a psychopath. Do this for a long enough time until your hypothetical psychotic behavior does in fact correspond to reality as you experience it."Get it? You can't make up the soul concept, assign every thought and action to this fantasy, then say, "Why looky here, I did all these things so my soul really does exist." Sure, the phenomena you ascribe to your soul do in fact exist, but they arise for entirely different reasons. You prove nothing this way.That is NOT how science works. It is hard to believe you don't realize this. Besides, how can I act as if I have a soul before I know what a soul is! Do you mean act morally? That just implies that I have a moral code which guides my actions, not a soul.An then there is this, "As children we acted as if our parents loved us and wanted to protect us. Life then went on to inform us if our assumption was true." And what do you say to victims of child abuse? Do you think they will trust that their a priori assumptions necessarily cause the phenomena that they then observe?posted 01/04/2008 at 12:51:25
When Religion Becomes Superstition
Wouldn't it have made a more compelling story if Jesus had actually managed to sway the Romans through the persuasiveness of his arguments? (But then we wouldn't have that great torture movie "The Passion".) If Jesus hadn't died, would humanity still have been "saved"?posted 01/03/2008 at 11:47:45
So the Romans - mere human beings - killed your god. Pretty weak god, if you ask me.posted 01/03/2008 at 09:22:41
You mean Shm-ley B-teach?posted 01/02/2008 at 20:55:14
Funny... I thought the missing vowel was an A.posted 01/02/2008 at 20:51:33
It seems that an omnipotent god could have found a better way to "save" mankind than to kill his own offspring. What a strange, primitive religion.posted 01/02/2008 at 20:48:48
Whitewashing and Cherry Picking Religion
I hope folks are still coming back here...So to be without belief is belief. And to be without pain is pain. And to be without love is love. Need I go on? If you told me you were bald and lacked hair, I wouldn't tell you, "No, you have hair, it's just bald hair". Somehow, though, you can't seem to see how that same idea applies to belief/unbelief. I tell you I don't believe in god, and you say, "No, you do believe, you just have unbelief belief."A couple of other points:First you say this, "Most believers don't say their belief system differs from other belief systems." Then you say this, "A Christian can say they believe this is God, but that belief over there is wrong, while some of it may be correct." I almost got whiplash following that one. Go ask people like Pandu, or Deepak Chopra, whether their belief systems differ from Christianity (and also from each other).Does Santa Claus exist? My 3 year old thinks so. By your argument, "Both are simply beliefs. Neither need be proven." I guess I'll have to go on letting him believe in Santa until he's 20.It just dawned on me that there may be another reason why we go round and round on this without reaching any concensus: Are you trying to say that EVERY human thought is a belief (i.e., an act of faith on the part of the thinker)? Are you making the point that truth is subjective, and external truth (if it exists) is unknowable? That is an entirely different argument (and I think my keyboard is about to spontaneously combust).posted 01/06/2008 at 02:45:41
Nicely said, HS, and I might add:Because there is no empirical evidence of gods (or the supernatural), the only source for the god concept is the human mind. As we all know, the human mind is responsible for many fantastical notions: fairies, Santa Claus, chupacabras, the uber-mind - the list is endless. No one ever challenges you to prove Santa doesn't exist. You are free to reject unproven fantasies any time you wish. If a True Believer is going to insist that atheism is a belief system just because atheists cannot prove the non-existence of god, then they must show how the god concept differs from any of these other fantasies. I am as free to reject the notion of god as I am to reject the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot.THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE TRUE BELIEVER.p.s., Have you read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer", yet? THAT'S my bible (Hee, hee).posted 01/04/2008 at 19:13:55
Excellent article! Well said.posted 01/02/2008 at 15:43:05
Faint Light for the New Year
Or man created gods as a place holder until science could take over.posted 01/01/2008 at 17:12:02
Hmmm...You know what else has always been a part of our nature?MurderRape Child AbuseSexismRacism SlaveryUniversality is not a very convincing argument for keeping any of these.P.S. Science is the anti-thesis of religion. Calling science a religion is just a sound-bite meant to confuse the argument (by trying to define your opponent as no different from yourself) and meant to anger rational folks (by accusing your opponents of being the thing they most despise - irrational). If you really feel science is a bugaboo like christianity, next time you get sick or injured, stick to prayer instead of modern medicine. Oh, and instead of typing these messages on a computer keyboard, try sending them by telepathy.posted 01/01/2008 at 17:09:51
Apart from god, humanity will stand up and face the universe with honesty and clarity.Apart from god, human beings can begin to develop a morality based on reason and human compassion.Apart from god, we just might survive as a species.Apart from god... which one by the way?posted 01/01/2008 at 13:49:59
You say, "The drama of religion versus science is so yesterday."Except that it's not. Consider some of the recent ways in which religion has intruded itself in our daily lives: The Terry Schiavo case (a personal tragedy the conservative religious nuts in Congress couldn't help sticking their noses into)Attempts to repeal abortion lawAttempts to demonize stem-cell researchWithholding from gay Americans the right to marryAttempts to keep the teaching of evolution out of our schools (or at least insert intelligent design)Here we are in the 21st century, and everything from the war in Iraq (viewed by many influential conservative leaders in the U.S. as a war against Islam) to whether or not a crucifix in urine can be displayed as art are still important to most Americans. We are as primitive in our thinking today as people were in the 16th century.Science doesn't have an agenda - but religion does. Religion insists on keeping us enslaved to the irrational. That is the only way it can survive. posted 01/01/2008 at 13:44:21
What are you talking about? This is the most far-right-wing country in the developed world - it is deeply, irrationally conservative and religious. Sure, in THEORY it's secular, but (unfortunately) in practice it is wholly religious. No atheist politician could get elected to office - in fact, we swear them into office with one hand on a bible! Atheists don't control any form of the media - point out one TV show or major movie that contains a blatantly atheist message. Just because most folks don't go around in sack-cloth scourging their backs with cat-o-nine-tails, doesn't mean this country lacks for religious belief.Honestly, the policies you point to as destructive are largely Republican policies - like failure to provide assistance to the poor. And what political party ties itself most closely to religion?Atheists don't run the show. If this country is a mess, it's you religionists who are to blame.posted 01/01/2008 at 10:11:42
No Evangelicals in Foxholes
Interesting. So you voluntarily chose to move the source of your morality from internal to external - highly unusual. I've often thought that the only way someone could change from an atheist to a believer would be if they experienced some tragedy so horrific that their mind just snapped and they turned for comfort to the security blanket called god. I asked the following question in another post that you can check out below: This vision of Krishna took place entirely within your own mind - I assume no one else witnessed this wonder, and that Krishna didn't leave behind any physical evidence like a gum wrapper or a cigarette butt. So how can you justify using a personal vision as evidence of the existence of god? You cannot share this vision, so how am I to judge its validity or whether it actually occurred? If I have a vision of an obese purple woman with a monkey's head who shoots pencils out of her nose, and reveals herself to be god, is my vision not as valid as yours? How many human beings throughout history, do you think, have had false visions of god - and how would they know?posted 01/03/2008 at 14:59:39
How big was Krishna's pen when he (she?) wrote the Bhagavad-gita? Probably a mile long.Don't you realize that your vision was entirely personal and took place inside your mind only? It can never be shared with anyone else, so what good is using it as evidence? Even if I were to magically see Krishna or Allah or Zeus, that experience of god would be mine alone - I would never presume to think that anyone else should just take my word for it. How many human beings, do you think, have had false visions of god? If I dream of a 500 foot tall goat with a fish-head who tells me to go about naked and singing show tunes, is that vision any less valid than yours?posted 01/02/2008 at 13:29:30
You don't get it? The god concept is a figment of the human mind - there is no empirical evidence for gods. The god concept is as valid as Santa Claus or Bigfoot. Do you keep an open mind as to Santa's existence just because some five-year-olds believe in him? Since god is purely an invention of the mind, it can be rejected just like any other fantasy.Visions are notoriously faulty. Is not Krishna sometimes a trickster? Maybe it was an enticement to seduce you from the true path to wisdom. Or perhaps a bad piece of chutney before bed.The religious experience in human beings can be viewed as a hierarchy, with at least 4 levels: The lowest level comprises the polytheistic religions, where we assign a little angry god to every phenomenon - a rain god, a sun god, a god of war, or even the Ganges River (sound familiar?). The second level is acheived when we coalesce all these godlings into one EXTERNAL god - traditional Western religions seem stuck at this level. But this one external god is still a petty, angry, (usually male) tyrant sitting on a cloud throwing lightning bolts. The third level is to INTERNALIZE god - Buddhists (though probably not Buddha himself) and some modern Western religionists (moderate christians and the like) are stuck here.The fourth level is to drop the need for the god concept altogether - i.e., atheism. This is probably when the Buddha acheived enlightenment. This fourth level (atheism) can be seen to be a logical outgrowth from the third level - if god is in everything, then god is everything and nothing. In other words, god just becomes another word for the universe. The universe is not a manifestation of god - it simply is what it is.When you finally come to atheism, you will look back on religion with incredulity - you can only shake your head and laugh. But dropping the need to believe in god can be the most difficult thing you will ever do. Good luck on your journey.posted 01/02/2008 at 13:17:44
Once you become the Buddha (i.e., acheive enlightenment), you stop being a Buddhist (i.e., a believer in legends).posted 12/30/2007 at 07:55:38
David, great article. However, a mini-debate I am having with another commenter under a different article on Huffpo has got me thinking about this very subject. You are more than certainly correct about some religionists: they fail to accept that any human being can be without "faith". But I think most of the time accusing atheists of being fundamentalist has a more nefarious intent.Choosing to call atheists fundamentalists (i.e., calling atheism a religion), when you know otherwise, serves two purposes: First, it is done in the hopes of confusing the argument. If you can successfully define your opponents as being no different from yourself, you disarm them. It's like a member of the KKK trying to justify their extreme position by pointing out that some blacks hate whites. Second, it is a thinly veiled attempt to anger atheists. What better way to goad your opponents than to accuse them of being the very thing they most despise. The Republicans are notorious for this - for example, accusing the Dems who want to bring the troops home and out of harm's way of not supporting the troops.And like Republicans, True Believers are not very good at thinking for themselves. When one of them comes up with what they think is a devastating sound-bite, like calling atheists fundamentalist, the rest parrot that comment without being able to justify it. No surprise that Republicans love True Believers.posted 12/29/2007 at 16:40:33
This argument is absurd. You seem to be rejecting logic, math, and science out of hand. By your argument, reason and science are made up belief systems just like religion, so why believe in anything? And yet you sit there typing on a product of science, confident that your ramblings will be "magically" transmitted to the world. When did you abdicate your humanity? Human beings have a large powerful organ in their heads called a brain. We are creatures of reason - if you choose to reject that, then you side with illogic and insanity.posted 12/29/2007 at 01:57:44
Buddha was clearly an atheist. Did that also make him a nihilistic materialist? You seem intent on being a poster child for Mr. Horton's essay - by your standards, if atheism is NOT a religion, then it must be worthless.Atheism is the highest level of spiritual development in human beings. Only when you have given up the need to believe in the supernatural will you be able to examine the Big Questions with honesty and your own human cognition. Only by choosing atheism will you be able to begin to develop a morality based on reason and human compassion.Why do you insist on enslaving yourself (and the rest of humanity) to the irrational? Buddha recognized the futility of believing in spiritual chimeras - gods, if you like. You will never acheive enlightenment so long as you cling to irrational beliefs.posted 12/29/2007 at 01:44:44
The 7 Habits Of Highly Spiritual People
Here's something else to chew on...I believe that human religious experience can be seen as hierarchical, with at least four levels: At the lowest level are the polytheistic religions - this is where we assign a little angry god to every phenomenon that we observe: a sun god, a rain god, a god of war. Next, are those religions which coalesce these disparate godlings into one EXTERNAL god which rules over all creation. The Western religious tradition seems stuck at this level - they bray over and over again that there is only one god, but he remains a petty little male tyrant sitting on a cloud somewhere throwing lightning bolts. The third rung on the ladder is to INTERNALIZE god - to believe that god is in all of us (and in everything). Buddhists (but possibly not Buddha himself) and modern Western religious practitioners (moderate Christians and the like) have risen to this level. And the fourth level is atheism. The last step on the spiritual journey is to drop the need for the god concept altogether. I think this is when the Buddha acheived enlightenment. This final level of spiritual growth follows directly from careful consideration of the third level - if god is in everything, then god is everything and nothing. God is just another word for the universe, and ceases to be important. The universe is not a manifestation of god - the unverse simply is what it is.Just my two cents.posted 12/30/2007 at 02:06:52
Aargh! My computer really mangled the punctuation in that last post.I am not so sure that my assertion that the god concept is a human invention is dogmatic. Consider: there are no external phenomena that suggest the existence of gods or the supernatural - if so, cite one. In fact, by definition the supernatural would be entirely unknowable - as soon as the supernatural manifested itself in nature, it would become measurable, quantitatively or qualitatively. Thus god cannot be observed. So what is the source of the concept of god? There is only one option left. The human mind is a wonderous thing, capable of infinite invention. Is it really so hard to see that anthropomorphizing the universe would be but a small thing for our minds to do?I take issue with one other comment: "To not believe in the possibility of something because there is no empirical evidence is antithetical to the scientific mind." Actually science reserves acceptance of new theories until experiments or observations are made which provide proof. For example, one of the fallacies of the anti-evolution crowd is that evolution is just an unproven theory - in fact much evidence exists to support it (the fossil record, genetics). And even those theories which remain unproven but which influence science (string theory, for one) must satisfy certain basic conditions: being logically consistent and not refuting previously made measurements or observations. But most importantly, science still reserves acceptance of unproven theories, like string theory, no matter how beautiful they are.posted 12/30/2007 at 02:00:25
Aha, a believer in Chopra's uber-consciousness! You say, "I simply think that 'our' intelligence is not a singularity, but is instead a dim awareness of the unfathomable intelligence that manifests existence."Please elaborate - what experiences (or learned information) have led you to this conclusion? Is it just an idea that makes you feel good about your existence? Talk about narcissism.You object to phrases like "a shame". Must no one ever express an opinion? You confuse strong opinion with fundamentalism. Here is Merriam-Websters" definition of fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". So application of the term would seem to depend on the existence of a set of basic principles.Hate to tell ya, but there is no atheist bible. This cannot be emphasized enough: THERE IS NO ATHEISTIC DOGMA. And you don"t get around this fact by saying, "but atheism stresses strict adherence to the fact that god does not exist " failing to leave open the possibility that She does." Why not?, you ask. Well, I"ll tell ya.The god concept is an invention of the human mind " it simply serves as mental plaster to temporarily fill the holes in our understanding. It played a useful role for our primitive ancestors who needed to find some explanation for the seemingly cruel and capricious phenomena they witnessed. But we are no longer primitives. There is no empirical evidence for gods or the supernatural. As a consequence, believing in gods has as much credibility as believing in fairies or the Loch Ness monster. Would you argue that someone who does not believe in Santa Claus is a fundamentalist? Must we leave open the possibility that he really does exist just because some human beings believe in him?posted 12/29/2007 at 15:27:51
And what language would you find acceptable from an atheist? Is there a rule book? Please cite those examples where I come across as "devout". Having strong opinions does not make one devout or fundamentalist.By extension, are you put off by a True Believer who sounds logical or rational? Must a True Believer always come across as a schizophrenic nut-case? If an atheist must never sound "devout", it follows that a religionist must never sound "moderate".In a concurrent article on Huffpo, David Horton makes the point that True Believers tar atheists with the religion brush because they cannot accept a human being who does belong to some form of religion. I think its something else. Calling atheists devout or fundamentalist serves two purposes: first, it is an attempt to confuse the argument. By accusing your opponents of being no different from yourself, you disarm them - it's like a member of the KKK trying to justify their beliefs by pointing out that some blacks don't like white people. Second, it's a thinly veiled attempt to anger atheists. What better way to raise the bile of someone than to accuse them of being the very thing they most despise.Please do respond. You should answer three questions: How may atheists discuss their views without sounding "devout"? (Cite examples where I used this language in my post.) By extension, what language do you accept from True Believers - must they ALWAYS sound devout? And what is your real motivation for making this charge - are you really confused by what atheism means, or are you just trying to goad atheists without actually defending your side?posted 12/29/2007 at 09:34:30
Cute. But your senses do record sound and gravity. They are measurable.A more apt comparison would be that between god and fairies, or god and the Loch Ness monster. Empirical evidence is what is lacking in these cases. (Ooh, I forgot about those grainy photos of flippers rising out of the water.)posted 12/28/2007 at 21:22:36
Atheism is the highest level of spiritual development in human beings. Why do you insist on enslaving yourself to the irrational? Let go of the silly need for the supernatural, and stand up and become a human being.Only when you become an atheist will you be able to face the Big Questions with nothing more than your own cognitive abilities. Only then will you begin to develop a morality based on reason and human compassion.How dare you belittle the morality of others simply because they do not share your personal god-belief. If you really feel that the claims of mere human beings to know anything about spirituality are worthless, then why are YOU commenting here? YOU should be silent on the subject as well. You know the saying: doctor heal thyself.Religion is the enemy of mankind. But I know how difficult it is to let go of that crutch. Remember: the slave may come to love the slavemaster, but he is still a slave.posted 12/28/2007 at 17:18:24
Realizing that you meant to be humorous, I went back and re-read the article. I found this comedic gem:"They Say Yes More Than They Say No.Naysayers are a downer. 'No' closes our hearts like cholesterol. (Naturally, this excludes saying 'No' to drugs or other self-destructive, noxious or illegal behaviors.) 'Yes' affirms life. People always would rather hear yes rather no. Unless it's when you ask your doctor, 'Do I have herpes?' "Priceless! "They say yes more than they say no" followed by "Do I have herpes?" Hee hee! Watch out Christian girls - if you say yes too often, you'll be visiting the doctor on a regular basis.posted 12/28/2007 at 17:02:33
Pandu, you're a card.Under another article you mentioned actually having seen Krishna, to which I ask: How do you know? Is not one aspect of Krishna as a trickster? Perhaps it was just an enticement to seduce you away from the true path - the path that leads to atheism.posted 12/28/2007 at 16:49:23
You're wrong.Atheism is the highest level of spiritual development in human beings. The Buddha attained true enlightenment when he left the supernatural behind. For this, he is rightly praised.The CORE beliefs of Buddhism - the ideas most directly attributable to the source - are a guide for living in the here and now. There is no reference to the supernatural.But the Buddha also knew how difficult it is to become an atheist - more importantly, how difficult it is to become one who does not believe in the supernatural at all. Witness yourself how difficult it is for you to leave behind the need to believe in gods.As for any reference to the supernatural (or Buddha's divinity) in Buddhist writings, these were later additions - mud thrown onto the teacher's message by less than enlightened followers. Thus Buddhism became a religion. A shame, really.posted 12/28/2007 at 16:44:00
I thought this article was serious, until I read this:"Have you noticed? Santa ho-ho-ho's his way down the chimney. The Dalai Lama giggles his way to enlightenment. Alfred E. Neuman has that eternal grin. The Laughing Buddha is, well, laughing. Spiritual people are happy."Santa and Alfred E. Neuman. Rich.posted 12/28/2007 at 16:30:33
They Still Deliver My Mail on Yom Kippur
I repeat: Krishna is also a trickster. How can you be sure it was the real Krishna and not an enticement to seduce you away from the true path.I thought I saw Hanuman once, but then he flung poo at me.posted 12/21/2007 at 18:18:21
Yes, there are at least 3 problems that I can see with being a "moderate" believer:First, the problem of fuzzy belief. Every religion that I am aware of has an accepted canon - its holy books. It seems that most moderate believers do not want to be painted with the "literalist" brush. But then, which parts of the canon do you choose to believe? Do you really get to pick and choose passages? If you are a moderate christian, do you believe Jesus woke up the dead? Is the Bible the word of god revealed to a select few? Today we would call people who hear god lunatics. By narrowing your focus to just those parts of the canon which meet modern acceptability, you remove the divinity from Jesus.Second, the "Tower of Babel" problem. By molding the religion of your choosing to your own personal needs and morality, you make your interpretation unique to you. How then is communal religious practice possible? Oh sure, your idea of god may overlap with someone else's in broad ways, but dig deep enough, and you will find differences with the other's notion of god. Thus god just becomes the adult form of the childhood imaginary friend - no one else can see YOUR imaginary sky-daddy, but they humor you that he exists. Also, why adopt a religion at all if you are just going to force it to conform to the ideas and morality that you already possess?Third, the problem of appeasing the fundies. Slice it any way you want, if you are going to attach the label of "Christian" to yourself, then you are giving tacit support to the most virulent of your Faith. Otherwise, you will find yourself saying, "I am the REAL christian, not those other guys." If you oppose fundamentalist christians, then why label yourself with the same name as they? Being a little bit religious is like being a little bit pregnant.posted 12/21/2007 at 14:37:04
Ah, but Krishna is also a trickster - perhaps it wasn't Krishna you saw at all, but an enticement to seduce you away from the true path to knowledge. You never can know for sure with visions. Hee hee.posted 12/21/2007 at 14:07:39
Other characteristics of human societies that have existed throughout time and nearly universally (thus qualifying as traditions) include: slavery, the secondary status of women, homophobia, racism, child abuse.Do you see no harm in continuing these traditions either? (And don't say, "but not in America!" Ask a women, or black, or gay, or Muslim living in this country how enlightened America is. Or just look at our history.)posted 12/21/2007 at 10:13:50
Atheism marks the highest level of spiritual development in human beings. The last step on the spiritual journey is to let go of the supernatural entirely. Buddha was an atheist, you know - and for that, he is rightly venerated.Only when you let go of the need for a sky-daddy to hold your hand will you begin to stand up and become fully human. Only then can you face the Big Questions with honesty and your own cognitive abilities. Only then can you begin to develop a morality based on reason and human compassion.Letting go of an irrational belief system (racism, sexism, nationalism, religion) can be the most difficult thing you will ever do - you have tied your self identity too tightly to these irrational modes of thinking, and to challenge them can feel like an attack on your core sense of self. But you must try to break free of the chains of illogic. The future of our species and planet may depend on it.Remember: the slave may come to love the slavemaster, but he is still a slave.posted 12/21/2007 at 10:06:08
Religion is the enemy of mankind. Religion enslaves human beings to the irrational. It is as morally repugnant as slavery, rape, or murder. I love my species and wish it to be all that it can. As an atheist, I cannot sit idly by and watch the evil of religion go unopposed.posted 12/20/2007 at 20:33:36
The truth is your Faith (as opposed to your faith) most likely has given sanction to its practitioners to go on murderous rampages in the past - the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.posted 12/20/2007 at 13:31:39
So it's not slavery that is bad, it's the slavemasters.Without the illogic of christianity, these politicians could not pander to it.posted 12/20/2007 at 13:28:04
JustAnotherJoe, what nonsense. Are you suggesting that your belief system is somehow divorced from how you treat other people? To cite one example, a vast number of Americans believe their religion gives them the right to discriminate against gays - are their beliefs really unimportant?posted 12/20/2007 at 12:50:54
Absolutely perfect!Thank you.posted 12/20/2007 at 10:37:32
Onward Christian Soldiers
You say, "Fundamentalists are those who refuse to accept that their models might, in any significant way, be incomplete or mistaken. Besides certain Christians and Muslims (but not the majority in either case), there are fundamentalist atheists..."NO, no, no! Can't we put this silly "fundamentalist atheist" BS to bed?Let's take your assertion that fundies are people who refuse to accept that their models might be incomplete or mistaken. By implication, this means that atheists must always keep open the option that god exists - in other words, to be agnostics. But "god" is an invention of the human mind - the god concept is mental plaster used to fill the holes in our understanding so we don't feel so scared at night. Gods are security blankets for adults. There is no empirical evidence for gods. Let god show herself but once, and there would be no atheists. Should I also have to accept that fairies or UFOS or unicorns may exist just because someone else believes in them?What people really mean when they use a term like "fundamentalist atheists" is that they wish atheists would just shut up and go away. They object to anyone with strong anti-god views from speaking their mind. Answer this question objectively: What influence do atheists have on our culture? Virtually none - no atheist can get elected to political office, no atheist message is apparent on TV or in movies. Irrational religion is the norm - no one questions it. So why are you so scared of a few atheists speaking their minds? Can't your god take it?No group has ever waged war or oppressed the True Believing masses in the name of holy Atheism. Oh, I know some religionista is going to shout, "But what about the commies?" The communists were just as religious as anyone else - they simply replaced heavenly deities with Earth-bound cults of personality. In the end, worshiping Stalin is no different from worshiping Santa-god.posted 12/19/2007 at 09:50:51
You say, "...Godless, cynical atheists, like most of you, with no moral compass."You've got it upside-down. MORALITY BASED ON THE FEAR OF A SUPERNATURAL SPANKING IS NO MORALITY AT ALL.Religious "morality" is just a response premised on the fear of god's wrath or the promise of heavenly reward (you know, like 70 virgins). It's behavior modification, not morality. Whack a dog on the nose with a newspaper, and he will "choose" to stop peeing on the carpet - but does the dog exhibit moral thinking? The threat of hellfire and brimstone may prevent you from sleeping with your neighbor's wife - but is that morality?Atheism is the highest form of spiritual development in human beings. Only when you give up the need for a sky-daddy to hold your hand will you begin to develop a morality based on reason and human compassion. Until then, you are not fully human.posted 12/19/2007 at 09:22:52
Celebrating The Spirit Of The Season
"Do you think God can be understood by mundane human intelligence?"Since "god" is an invention of human minds, all of the essence of the god concept is held within those minds.Your question only has meaning to those accept the god concept a priori - i.e., True Believers. But god - a truly empty nothing of a word - does not exist without human minds to make him/her up.posted 12/17/2007 at 14:58:54
Romney's Founders
"However the God question is not as myriad as you make it sound. At its simplest it's either/or. Each side, mathematically speaking, has a 50 percent chance of being correct."Urgh... I teach mathematics, including a course in probability and statistics - and I can point out two fallacies in your statement. The first is the notion that the "god question" is measurable. Sure, if you could take a random sample of universes and count the number of universes with gods and the number without gods, you could establish a probability - but I think you see the impossibility of that. The second fallacy is the notion that all either-or choices are 50-50. Rainfall on any given day in the future is an either-or choice - either it rains or it doesn't. So is the chance of rain tomorrow 50%? I don't know where you live, but where I live, rain does not fall on half the days of the year.As for who has the burden of proof in the "god question", I am surprised that you cannot follow my argument. Let me try again: if I told you I believe a 3-headed woman with green skin lives on Mars, even though I've never seen her, what would your reaction be? By your logic, you would have to accept (or at least, respect) my belief as valid because you could no more disprove it than I could prove it. But lacking empirical evidence, my claim is just a whimsy - a figment of my imagination. The burden is on me to prove my assertion. You should not be expected to travel to Mars to verify that no such woman exists.posted 12/12/2007 at 23:47:39
Oh sure, there was a momentary blip of sanity when a handful of liberal views snuck into this bible-thumpin, gun-totin, far-right-wing country - "crazy lefty" stuff like the civil rights movement. But since then, this country has slid right back into the crapper.And gay marriage in the 1960s? I missed that one.posted 12/12/2007 at 23:19:46
modsmuse, You say, "The burden of proof is on whoever is making an assertion, regardless what the content of the assertion is."If true, do you not recognize the "Tower of Babel" that would create? If every assertion, for or against, is equally valid, then the universe is truly schizophrenic. If I assert that the moon is made of cheese, how do you counter it? Forget the photos of astronauts cavorting on the moon - everyone knows the moon landings were filmed in a hangar at Area 51. So, my assertion is as valid as your counter assertion - or maybe you agree the moon is made of cheese?Think about what this does to religion. Let's say we both believe in god. Although our conceptions of god might overlap in many significant ways, we would never be in 100% agreement as to the Almighty's nature - I might picture my god as having a little less hair or a bigger nose. Well, since both images are equally valid, this implies two gods - in fact, as many gods as there are believers. Then why discuss religion at all? Your beliefs about your personal god would have no meaning in anyone else's world, and communal religious experiences would cease to be possible.When one invents a fantastical notion of any sort, it cannot be the burden of others to disprove it. Hey, I've got a unicorn in my backyard, no kidding. And aliens abduct me every night, and my mom's a bigfoot. Go ahead, prove me wrong.posted 12/11/2007 at 23:37:00
It's not the atheist's burden to prove that god does not exist. It's the True Believers burden to prove that he/she does. Human beings invented the concept of god based on their own cognitive shortcomings - believing in god is not the result of empirical observations. So why does an atheist have to disprove a chimera? My 3-year-old is convinced a fat guy with a white beard and a red suit enters our house each Christmas to leave toys behind. Now although I do not believe in Santa, I will not try to convince him otherwise for a few more years. By your argument, I can no more prove that Santa doesn't exist any more than my child can prove he does. So denying Santa is merely an appeal to "faith"?If you really are an atheist, you should know better.posted 12/11/2007 at 15:21:05
Why do you insist that liberal values have taken over in the US? Its actually the other way around.Since the late 1960s we have seen in this country: Nixon elected twice, Reagan elected twice, Bush Sr. once, and (this one blows my mind) Dubya twice. We have seen the rise of the religious right, widespread opposition to gay marriage, and continual attacks on abortion rights. Environmental protections have been all but dismantled, nearly every sector of the economy has been deregulated, unions are in decline, and most citizens have brain-washed into believing that paying even a penny of tax is submitting to Satan.It's the right that has triumphed. If America is in a mess, it's your mess.posted 12/11/2007 at 15:09:59
Ah, the teleological argument. Question: could the universe be even more orderly? If so, then this is hardly the best of all possible worlds, and our creator is not so benevolent after all.Human beings are an evolutionary product of THIS universe. As such, the "beauty" and "order" human beings think they are seeing is actually a reflection of the fact that WE were designed by the universe - the universe was not designed for us. Stop navel-gazing.If the universe consisted of a different set of physical laws and cosmological constants, then we would be a product of that universe instead. Why, I bet we would think THAT universe was perfect, too! Finding order and beauty in an environment you were designed for is NO proof of an intelligent designer.Consider these absurd observations:Fish need water to breathe, and where do you find fish? In water!The chlorophyl in plants requires sunlight to manufacture energy - and the sun rises every morning to shine on plants!Every time I wash my car, birds poop on it!Miracles all.posted 12/11/2007 at 09:45:56
Sherri Shepherd Doesn't Get That Whole BC Thing, Insists "Jesus Came First"
You're both doing it to each other! Anyone who writes comments here is trying to prove their superiority to people who can't write.Oh no, now I'm doing it too!posted 12/05/2007 at 10:28:16
Bah, Hitchens
My metaphor about religion being a net was meant to imply that religion allows few to escape its grasp. A religion that tolerates dissent will quickly evaporate. Consider a few characteristics of most religions:- Religions tend to indoctrinate children into the belief system long before their cognitive abilities would allow them to way the arguments and positions for themselves.- Religions tend to deny salvation to unbelievers. Where's the human compassion in that?And, as you have pointed out, human beings are born with a propensity to accept religion. You, modsmuse, see this as evidence that religion is a valid human experience. I see it as indicating that humans are spiritually and mentally weak - they attach themselves to irrational belief systems to keep from having to think. Like barely sentient fish, we are too easily caught.Thus, in my opinion, religion has a death-grip on humanity. Woe to us if we do not break free.(I don't think my metaphor had quite the same meaning as you had hoped for. Sorry,)posted 12/12/2007 at 00:18:48
Echoing HeevenSteven, things can have intrinsic characteristics not shared by the rest of the universe.Fish have gills - so I guess you would argue the universe has gills, since fish are of the universe. But how does the universe manifest its gills outside the realm of fish? Human beings attach meaning to things - so I guess you would argue the universe attaches meaning to things, because human beings are of the universe. But how does the universe attach meaning to things outside the realm of the human mind?It can't, and it doesn't - no matter how much you want it to.posted 12/11/2007 at 23:57:20
Ah, but "religion is irrational" is MY (i.e., human) assertion.I still await an answer to the question as to whether "meaning" can be defined outside human minds. It seems (to me) that the need for life to have "meaning" is often just a desperate cry for there to be something more. But life is enough - love and be loved, and you will be alright.posted 12/11/2007 at 17:45:02
You keep citing thinkers, authors, and artists from the past who were "influenced" by religion as examples of its worth. But don't you understand that these people had little choice but to incorporate that influence into their lives and works?First, human beings are spiritually weak. We succumb easily to the pull of the supernatural for a variety of reasons - fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of the void (i.e., the need to anthropomorphize the universe to prove we are not alone). To break free of the chains of religion is one of the hardest things that a human being can do. The Buddha is rightly praised for his ability to reject all gods and embrace atheism - that's what he really did you know.Secondly, religion (at least in the West) is a smothering, crushing entity that allows little or no dissent. What realistic chance did most free-thinkers have of expressing themselves outside the bounds of religion? Heretics and pagans have never been well received in any society. And it has to be this way - since religion is at its core irrational, it must not allow human beings to think for themselves.You are fond of citing books for us to read. Let me suggest one for you. It's called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. Try it.posted 12/10/2007 at 22:59:41
That serious intellects haved grappled with the idea of god does not by necessity imbue the god concept with any special value.I must admit that I have never read Hawkings book, but I assume by the fact that you cite it often that he reveals within it some of his own musings about god. I agree, Hawkings is a brilliant physicist. But this does not imply that he has any special insight into the supernatural. I think that when you wrap yourself in the belief in the existence of god, you are unable to step back and observe the phenomenon of that belief objectively. Once you leave the need to believe in the supernatural behind, you see things in a new light. For one, you can see the deadening weight that Judeo-Christian-Islam has had on Western Civilization. It's depressing - it's like a heavy blanket smothering our culture. That so many authors, artists, and thinkers have been "influenced" by the Abrahamaic religions is nothing to wonder at - how could it have been any different? Human beings seem to succumb to the trap of religion all too easily - breaking free of this trap is one of the hardest things a human being can do.The net of religion allows few fishes to escape.posted 12/10/2007 at 22:45:01
Simple question: define "meaning".This need for existence to have "meaning" seems to be a primary source for believing in the supernatural. But no one ever defines it. Does it involve verification of one's existence by a cosmic bookkeeper writing down your every thought and action? Does it arise from a need to see yourself connected to everything else in existence by invisible tendrils? Actually, I think you've answered the question already - HUMAN BEINGS attach meaning to things. Thus the need to find "meaning" is an innate HUMAN cognitive trait. I challenge you to present evidence that the UNIVERSE exhibits the trait of applying meaning to things.But human beings are afraid of being alone - afraid of the void. Believing that the rest of the universe should also possess "meaning" is just a human wish to anthropomorphize existence. Then god can wrap his big hairy arms around us and whisper that we're loved.posted 12/10/2007 at 22:20:37
Aha! It becomes a little clearer now. I begin to understand what you mean when you say atheists such as myself are dogmatic (or, as others have described us, fundamentalist).When I say that religion enslaves us to irrationality, I mean that it demands we use its irrational beliefs to understand and explain reality. But that's all I mean.Of couse, I do not reject irrationality (creativity? fantasy?) as a wonderful means of expression in the arts. The confusion appears to be that I say I reject religion for INSISTING that its particular irrational belief system be used to explain the universe while never making it clear that I do not reject irrationality as a useful means of expression in the arts. Without that explanation, my thoughts do appear to be sterile and cold. Thank you for asking me to clarify my position. posted 12/09/2007 at 22:16:24
Apparently you just started reading these posts - look down the list for comments attacking Hitchens for being: arrogant, dogmatic, rude, British, and an alcoholic. And note that I do not defend Hitchens the man. His recent political commentary regarding the Middle East is reprehensible. But if you oppose the message of "God is Not Great", then you should attack that work (or his subsequent musings on the subject). It is inappropriate to launch personal attacks that have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate.And really, do you not understand the reference to christians in this context? Let me explain it for you: the usage was meant to shame religious people into examining their justification for attacking Hitchens on purely personal grounds. Isn't there some christian parable about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? And "do not judge lest ye be judged"?posted 12/09/2007 at 21:53:00
And what would that marvellous fact be - that we are all just characters in a cosmic SIMS game?posted 12/09/2007 at 21:26:11
What if god doesn't exist?What if the myths you have so tightly wrapped yourself in turn out to be false?That may be the ultimate fear for True Believers - one day they will wake up to realize that the god they have bowed and scraped before is really made of wood.And, what a weird argument for believing in god - "I'd better hedge my bets and pray to somebody because I wouldn't want to anger that invisible bogeyman." What a petty silly god that would be - "I'll hide myself and just dare those little humans to doubt my existence."posted 12/09/2007 at 21:24:51
Ooh - seems like I hit a nerve!Are you comfortable with slavery? How about rape? Child-abuse?For me, religion is as morally repugnant as any of these.RELIGION KEEPS HUMANITY ENSLAVED TO IRRATIONALITY. It has to - that is the only way it can survive.I love my species, and as such I want us to be all that we can be. Why on Earth would I sit by and watch humanity suffer needlessly from such a fatal flaw? Feeling the way I do, it would be utter nihilism for me to sit on my hands, smiling cheerfully at all the True Believers bowing and scraping before their wooden gods, and do nothing.Atheism is the highest form of spirituality in human beings. But it is very difficult to acheive. For most True Believers, their sense of self is too wrapped up in their religion to consider letting it go.The slave may come to love the slave-master, but he is still a slave.posted 12/09/2007 at 19:13:01
As an atheist, why would you assume I would find that biblical passage beautiful? I find it hilarious - god as creator, angels, mankind dominant over the rest of creation. It's like a bad nonsense poem.And you can't dance away from what others say about this claptrap. How you True Believers choose to interpret this fantasy is the whole point, isn't it? Men have rushed off to war over these ideas many times in the past.Sure, Shakespeare, et al., were influenced by the christian bible. What does that prove? They lived during a time when the bible was virtually the only literary document known to most people in Europe. It was a world dominated by that book - EVERYTHING was filtered through it. It was a time of limited enlightenment, when to stand against religion or the church would have put your life in danger, let alone your livelihood. (And besides, they were all better authors than the folks who penned the bible - and they went far beyond it's themes in their own works.) Plus, you are obviously dismissing (or are unaware of) all the marvelous literary works whose authors had never heard of the bible. For starters why not try the Iliad and the Odyssey.And yes, I dump all religious people into one group. What do you think it matters to an atheist whether you are Baptist, or Episcopalian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu? Each is an adherent to an irrational belief system, none with any greater claim on truth than the others. And religious moderates are no better than fundies - trying to pick and choose which whimsical biblical passages or irrational church laws you will follow today doesn't make you better than the literalists. Being a little religious is like being a little pregnant.posted 12/08/2007 at 01:11:03
(sigh) I've done this debate with True Believers on Huffpo before. I know where this is going.What can I say if you are going to quote such hilarious bible passages. In one post you have revealed the absurdity (god as creator) and crass navel-gazing (man as the center of god's concerns) of all the Abrahamaic faiths. Do you not realize that THIS passage is often cited by conservative True Believers as justification for raping the planet? "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." Beautiful? How to read this other than that god is giving sanction to man to do whatever he feels like, consequences be damned.Animals driven to extinction? Too bad - they should have read their Bibles. Environment destroyed? Hey, this is our playground - god said so. Scary.And did you really miss my point about religion being mental plaster? The holes in our understanding are holes precisely because SCIENCE has yet to fill them. Religion is a temporary patch until the light of reason can mend things properly.It is terrifying for most people to face the world when they must admit uncertainty about the sources of phenomena or the direction of events. It is understandable that empty primitive minds would anthropomorphize the universe. But it is the duty of sentient beings to raise themselves out of the mud and face the universe with reason and a lack of fear. Religion keeps us enslaved to the irrational - it must if it is to survive. And so, it fights back against those who would reject it and claim their humanity. True Believers succumb to this enslavement because they have so tightly wrapped their sense of self around religion that to give it up would be to admit to deep flaws in their existence.The slave may come to love the slave master, but they are still a slave.posted 12/06/2007 at 21:13:44
"Religion exists because it obviously answers a purpose. It mitigates some of that killing, it adds restraint."Consider an alternative: Religion exists as mental plaster - it fills the holes in our understanding.Much of the knowledge base of primitive man was limited. Why did it rain? Why did the game disappear? Why did my child die during the night? Without obvious answers, it was necessary to invent an omnipotent invisible entity who was directing these phenomena. And if you didn't want to have bad things happen, it was desireable to please that entity through prayer and sacrifice. And in the pursuit of appeasing this petty, tyrranical, invisible god, is it not likely that primitive man could convince himself to commit all manner of atrocities against those fools who did not believe in the same entity?Isn't it time to leave behind such childish views? Will you always be frightened by the gods of thunder and lightning? Or will you finally stand up, reject the irrational, and become a fully sentient adult human being? This planet may depend on your answer.posted 12/06/2007 at 13:36:32
Again with the "arrogant-rude-British" attacks. Have you religionistas nothing to contribute in defense of your irrational beliefs?I'm no defender of Hitchens - his neo-con politics disgust me.But the message of "God is Not Great" should be attacked through counter arguments, not by attacking the messenger. That is totally inappropriate, and you "Christians" know it.posted 12/06/2007 at 12:03:06
Can't we put this tire old dog to bed? (Hee hee, dog - dogma.)I assume you interpret an atheist's refusal to have tolerance for religious faith as being dogmatic.Then you don't understand what "dogma" means.Having strong opinions about something does not imply being dogmatic about that subject.Consider: I assume you feel pretty strongly that slavery is evil. Given the chance, you would speak out against slavery, even fight against it.Are you being dogmatic about your anti-slavery views?Dogma is a set of views rigidly adhered to even in the face of counter evidence.So go ahead and prove the existence of god. If you do, and I keep on insisting She doesn't exist, then I am being dogmatic.Rejecting YOUR dogmatic beliefs does not imply that I must substitute a set of my own.Do you think we atheists all get together somewhere to pound out an anti-religion platform, and plan concerted attacks? If you've got the name of such an organization, please share. I'd be happy to join.posted 12/06/2007 at 11:58:17
That's just me being sarcastic. I am never surprised at the idiocy of people who believe god had his own progeny murdered to save humanity.posted 12/05/2007 at 14:52:45
That's right, atheism is nothing more than adolescent rebellion writ large. "You're a jerk, god. So there!"It is breath-taking how much idiocy, anger, and venom that religious moderates will accept from their fundamentalist brethren. But dare anyone raise a voice against religion, and you all react as if unbelievers are out to murder your children.Calling Hitchens arrogant, British, or (as some have done in a very ugly way) an alcoholic, is totally inappropriate and besides the point. If arrogance or pomposity were a crime, all the Fox News anchors would be in jail. I'm quite surprised by all you "Christians".posted 12/05/2007 at 10:44:52
Calling Hitchens an alcoholic, in lieu of an actual argument against his position, is entirely inappropriate. It's vicious and petty. In fact, it does your side a disservice by painting you as intolerant.Why don't you try crafting a thoughtful response to his atheist views. If you can't support a counter argument against the "god is not great" arguments, then leave the discussion alone. Other favorite attacks against Hitchens (that have nothing to do with his atheist views) include accusing him of being arrogant and British. Is that the best you religionistas can do?posted 12/05/2007 at 09:34:38
You say,"the fact that every culture on this planet has grappled with religious ideas suggests that religion answers a deep need."Yeah, and every culture on this planet has also had to grapple with slavery, child abuse, wife-beating, murder, intolerance,...Should we just accept all of these human traits because they are universal? Or should we fight against them in the hope that one day our species will lift itself out of the mud.For me, as for many atheists, religion is as morally repugnant as slavery or rape. Religion enslaves humanity to the irrational, and for that there can be no tolerance or respect.Human beings exhibit many traits that may once have played a role for our primitive ancestors, but which are no longer desireable. In this context, religion can be seen as mental caulking material - it was necessary as a patch to fill the holes in our understanding. Imagine primitive man trying to understand the universe. His mind requires him to make sense of phenomena, and then his child is felled by a bacterium that he cannot see, or his friend goes out on the hunt but never returns. It must seem that the universe is out to get him. How easy to anthropomorphize the universe to explain death and pain. How natural to want to appease that petty capricious entity with prayer and sacrifice.Will you always be a caveman, groveling before the gods of lightning and thunder? Or will you stand up and face the world as a sentient being free from belief in the supernatural? Our planet may depend on that answer.