HOT TOPIC REPOSTED BY POPULAR DEMAND
Not sure, but I don’t think the Brit author of this piece likes these guys.
The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
It’s an extraordinary publishing phenomenon – atheism sells. Any philosopher, professional polemicist or scientist with worries about their pension plan must now be feverishly working on a book proposal. Richard Dawkins has been in the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic since The God Delusion came out last autumn following Daniel Dennett’s success with Breaking the Spell. Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate, has now clocked up two bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Last week, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything was published in the US. The science writer, Matt Ridley, recently commented that on one day at Princeton he met no fewer than three intellectual luminaries hard at work on their God books.
[…]Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief.
And it’s a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated (although they differ as to the chances of achieving that). The newcomer on the block, Hitchens, sums up monotheism as “a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events”.
The durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking […] Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed – the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date?
I can’t resist all these prompts you guys are giving me.
#30 “If you don’t believe in a God or in an afterlife, then, other than the biological imperitive to survive, why stick around?”
Because THIS is all there is. This is the game we HAVE to play. THAT, your wishful thinking, is what I RESENT. You can’t deal with the inevitability of oblivion and the essence of the humahn condition so you MUST, and I am very sorry for you, invent a reality to compensate for your lack of meaning.
I have morality. I can envision my place in what I know of the cosmos. I have cried and pitied our condition. I have wailed in the night to nobody, screaming for some answer and road to follow. None comes. No path to follow but the one that leads to rational inquiry.
You can punch holes in the scientific method but informed rationality is impentrable. It anticipates its own destruction by new information.
“You could rob an armored car, get some loot to make your life more comfortable and if you never got caught you would never be judged for your crime. You would get away scott free, but in the end it really wouldn’t matter since you will end up dead just like the honest people.”
“As a regular human male, I have made many mistakes I just have to live with. Thankfully I have not committed any crimes of passion. I have harmed others and myself. I must make the best of this mess I have.”
True compassion comes from within. I suppose some people deserve the panopticon.
“You could help save the lives of starving children in a third-world country and all you would accomplish is postponing their eventual final end. The end you will also meet with no final reward for your efforts.”
Yes, life sucks. That is the great work: to forge meaning out of chaos. I don’t need to sacrifice my own life in order to live it well.
I am saddened that you think you know the answer before asking the question. This is what philosphy is all about. Get some philosophy!
“So, why bother doing anything good, or bad for that matter? Just count off the days until your meaningless life is over. ”
Exactly!
Um. Sorry if anyone got upset. It’s just an interesting online discussion and I wanted to state my thoughts. Why should my position be so reviled that I can’t share it?
Again, if there is a God then I am comfortable with my opinions. If there is no God, then I’m wrong, but it doesn’t really matter much in the end.
Fast moving topic today. I’m late to the party.
I have to say first that I am an antitheist. This means I genuinely do oppose theism. This does not mean that I oppose god. I cannot oppose that in which I do not believe.
However, theism has had a huge deleterious effect on humanity as evidenced by its huge number of deleted humans.
That’s right, religion kills!!
We here in New York City witnessed a wonderful case in point on 9/11/2001. Other examples include, but are not limited to: the IRA, abortion clinic bombings, doctor shootings, the inquisition, the crusades, Joshua at Jericho, many many forms of “ethnic cleansing” (genocides), etc. etc. etc.
You may say that atheists have killed people too and point to the likes of Stalin. That’s true. However, I can’t think of any that killed in the name of atheism. Such mass murderers typically have an ideology, not a lack thereof.
So, when you look at “atheist fanatics” and hate us, tell us again how your religion is one of peace and love. And, please switch to antitheists for those of us who do actively oppose religion and note that many atheists do not.
And, when you decide that perhaps, just perhaps, those of us that are not theists have a right not to be preached at, remember that it does not harm your religion in any way to avoid having your godvertisements all over the place, money, the pledge, courthouses, and worst of all, teaching the inherently failed hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”. This is an hypothesis so silly that it logically flies right up its own asshole in endless recursion and many theists want to pollute the minds of other peoples’ children with such ridiculous fallacies.
31. I only skimmed through the article. I never claimed to have a completely informed opinion, or to have read the books in question. However, I’m not sure how you see anything fanatical about my comment. If that was true, then I would be quite a hypocrite, wouldn’t I? I wouldn’t consider myself a fanatic.
In particular, though, one quotation struck me as going too far.
“some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”
How can this not be considered fanatical? As the article notes, it does seem very similar to the ideas behind the Inquisition. The article also notes several comments towards religious leaders and figures. What we need is rational, intelligent debate, not name-calling. In that respect, I would agree with the authors in question, even if I do not agree with the way they chose to say it.
Perhaps I was wrong in some parts of my comment, but I think you are reading too much into my words, responding to ideas that were never there.
I’ve read Sam Harris, both The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nations. I’m curious just where this particular line was, “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them”.
I honestly do not recall a single passage in either book that advocated killing. I certainly would like a more detailed citation from a specific book than just a quote of a single line out of a lengthy book. I suspect this is a quote out of context and would have very very different meaning in context.
Having seen a quote from Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker twisted to support theism and tracking down the complete quote, I can say that such quotes may mean very different things when not deliberately cut out of context to support someone else’s opinion.
One glaring error in Richard Dawkins’ atheistic philosophy is the absurd presupposition that the Christian New Testament is no more spiritual and uplifting than the Nazi Bible.
#40-Thank you for your rational and measured response. Just one question. I gave an example of a person who robbed an amount of money (not an example from my past, by the way) and never was caught. However, now assume he was caught. What would Nichomachean Ethics do with such a person and why?
Thanks.
#39 – Shubee,
Please people, give some citations for your quotes. Many statements taken out of context have very different meanings. I have read both The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker.
I would like to be able to check the context of the quotes that people attribute to Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris. How can I do so. These are prolific authors of long books. Give chapters of specific books. Give me something so I can find them.
Shubee, I’ve never even heard of a Nazi Bible. Where does Dawkins mention this?
One more point. Many theists seem to assume that Dawkins, Harris, or Dennet wrote some book or set of books that comprise an atheist bible of sorts. This is not the case. These books are not dogma. It seems that many of the faithful have difficulty understanding that some people are capable of forming their own conclusions and need no bible to tell them the proper way to be atheists, agnostics, or other non-theists.
See the story below titled “How Will We Bring Democracy To A Country That Still Stones Girls To Death?” for another good reason why we hope for the end of religion. The fruit of religion is religious war and horrible deaths like this one. I have never heard of a religion that amounted to anything more than ignorant superstition. From the Greek Pantheon of Gods to the most recent religions they are all tools of enslavement and world domination and none of them are true.
There has never been any credible evidence of the existence of a supreme being and the so called holy books are packs of self contradicting lies. Any scripture written by god would be perfect, not riddled with obvious lies and ridiculous suppositions.
Once again, theists have not presented any arguments for theism that can stand honest and logical scrutiny.
I doubt there are any real atheist, at least not that many!
I doubt there are many people whose mind is disciplined such that their oral or written verbage is truly empirically based. There are some people I know who approach being truly empirically based, and I honestly admire them. Then there are the many who claim to the empirical atheist, but functionally anything but empirical.
As far as atheist being benevolent, looking at history that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Notable Atheist:
Joseph Stalin world’s worst mass-murderer
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Enver Hoxha
Notable theist:
BTK Mass Murderer: Scout Leader, Church President
Jim Jones
….
That is not to say all Atheist, or Theist are mass murders. Apparently there is more to a mass murderer then theology or the lack there of.
In the old Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks originally embraced “an ideological creed that all religion would atrophy” and resolved to eradicate Christianity.
Yet look at the mix Russia has produced, Stalin and some of the worlds greatest artist and scientist.
For the theist, mass murder and torture, can justified by the believer (think George Bush). Furthermore, this reveals his own moral system to be a farce. Whether the believer has a theology or not, his belief is contradicted.
For me, I wish Christians in general where more Christ like and less Bush like.
#42. References to the Nazi Bible are given here:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Richard_Dawkins
Please compare those references to Richard Dawkins’ insistence that Adolf Hitler was Catholic, revealed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g
Many interesting comments. I have just one —
If I had a god, my god would be better than your god, so someone could pay us to fight over it for eons.
As many atheists and people of non-Christian religions have stated, we have absolutely no problem with Christians *except* when gets involved in government or education. It is ridiculous to have “In God We Trust” on our money or “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. It ghastly to have our President state that a war primarily against Muslims is a Crusade. It unconscionable to have people that still think that world is 6000 years old and that evolution is “just a theory.” In other words, atheists only become “fanatical” when the religious make policy based on ignorance.
Secondly, as someone once said, “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” Atheism is not a religion; it has no undefined, unsubstantiated beliefs (such as supernatural beings or aliens) to which they universally adhere.
#30
> If you don’t believe in a God or in an afterlife, then,
> other than the biological imperitive to survive, why stick
> around?
If the next life is filled with 70 virgins and is so much better than the current life, why stick around?
> So, why bother doing anything good, or bad for that matter?
> Just count off the days until your meaningless life is
> over.
If you are always forgiven for your sins, why care if you do anything bad? After all, Hitler will be forgiven, why not go to town, enjoy yourself and ask forgiveness later?
#41
> What would Nichomachean Ethics do with such a person and
> why? Thanks.
They would be punished because stealing is deleterious to society. Criminal law (as opposed to Constitutional law) is designed to change behavior which is why you have some punishments like theft punished less harshly in some cases than drinking and driving which, unless the person gets in an accident, is considered a victimless crime. The more problematic and pervasive the behavior becomes the harsher the punishments in order to curb that behavior. The cost to society to give up the freedom to steal is more than made up in the benefit of created by people that feel when they are assured they will not have their stuff stolen.
#46
> I doubt there are any real atheist, at least not that many!
As someone (Carl Sagan I think) said, “We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.”
Further, theists have killed far more atheists than the reverse by a long shot. Two examples: Hitler and the Inquisition.
#49 poor Thomas
“Carl Sagan I think” …. your a rich one, if only you could think!
“I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours”. – Stephen F. Roberts
But hey, don’t let a good education, history or math for that matter cloud your intellect.
I hope for your point of view, your “analytical thinking and training” is not representative of other atheists.
I can not believe that in this modern age, people still believe there is a god! The very idea makes me laugh. The actions of those who believe often times make me sick to my stomach. Be rational and grow up!
#39:
Is it fair to assume that you have only heard about Richard Dawkins’ books? Is it furthermore fair to assume that you have only heard what “interested circles” had to say about them?
If you care at all about your credibility in a discussion, please go ahead and read “The God Delusion”. It’s not friendly towards religion, that’s true, but it’s not dogmatic, it’s not polemic, it takes a scientific view on things and it tries to motivate it’s readers to to just that.
When you’re at it, do yourself a favor and read “the selfish gene” and “the extended phenotype”. Those are the scientific backdrop you need to look at to understand that Dawkins is not an atheist in the first place but a scientist who tries to answer some of the deep questions we have and who refuses to take things for granted.
pj
Oh dear,
I wrote comment comment #32 at around 1am in the morning
In it I wrote:-
“You and people like you are beyond contempt
You show the true colours of the so called religious.”
Having slept on what I said I have now come to realise that I was totally out of order.
Absolutely no human being should be beyond contempt
I showed the same arrogance and lack of tolerance that I so readily accuse the theists of
To Raddad I sincerely aplologize
Sorry
One thing I’ve noticed. Agnostics DOUBT existence of God. Athiests KNOW there is no God. All I say to Athiests is Prove It…
@54
That’s a ridiculous statement. For every god I don’t believe in I have to prove they don’t exist? Where else in life does one operate like this?
There are an infinite amount of things which we cannot prove but we can take to a reasonable certainty to be true.
For example, there could be a invisible mickey mouse which hovers over me and puts thoughts into my head. I can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Does that mean I should be Agnostic to its existence? In my opinion it does not.
Flip your logic for one second. Agnostics DOUBT the existence of God. Religious people KNOW there is a God. All I say to the religious people is Prove it…
Sorry, the above was meant to start
@53
#49
While I did not know the author of the quote, and made that clear, the sentiment is still valid. Did you actually have a point or are you just a troll?
#53
> One thing I’ve noticed. Agnostics DOUBT existence of God.
> Athiests KNOW there is no God. All I say to Athiests is
> Prove It…
No sir. You have it wrong. Atheists state that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that a supernatural being exists just as there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that Santa Claus exists. The onus is always on the claimant which in the discussion of religion always rests with theists to provide evidence that their claim deity exists.
#54, Chris, I was about to say “You can’t prove a negative”, but this thesis (a really easy read and well worth a couple of minutes for any logical being) has really squeezed my wheaties:
You CAN prove a negative
http://tinyurl.com/288cn7
I’m not disagreeing, but you could read the short PDF in the link.
Darnit, I’ve posted too late again.
#49 – But hey, don’t let a good education, history or math for that matter cloud your intellect.
Wow… The guy incorrectly attributed an obscure quote.
Don’t just call him an idiot. This crime demands justice. Slam his wife’s head with a rock. Burn his house down. Behead his children before his eyes. This vermin is not fit to live among us. No seriously, you so completely underreacted.
thus endeth the sarcasm
#45 – noname,
As I noted in one of my prior posts. Yes, of course atheists have been mass murderers. The big difference is that atheists have done so in the name of some other ideology. Theists that have been mass murderers often do so in the name of their religions, thus making religion a proximate cause in a way that, to my knowledge, atheism has never been.
#46 – Shubee,
So there actually was a Nazi Bible. The idea being to remove all Jewish influence from the already existing version. This does an excellent job of making the antitheist point that Hitler was a theist killing, at least in part, to promote his new religion.
#48 – Thomas,
Extremely well said, regardless of whether or not the quote was correctly attributed.
#49 – noname,
Thanks for the correct attribution of the quote. Otherwise though, your post is pretty asinine (your post, not you, I’m not name-calling) and makes no real point and an invalid assumption based on nothing.
#51 – pjakobs,
I would also add a recommendation for The Blind Watchmaker. It does an excellent job of making the point that we are not intelligently designed, even though it’s a tad dated. Though the data was already overwhelmingly in favor of evolution even then, it is even more so now.
#53 – Chris,
One thing I’ve noticed. Agnostics DOUBT existence of God. Athiests KNOW there is no God. All I say to Athiests is Prove It…
Sorry Chris, this is incorrect. The correct statement is:
Agnostics DOUBT existence of God. Athiests BELIEVE there is no God.
The difference is important. Atheists conclude that there is no god in the same way that you conclude that there are none of the following:
faeries, hobbits, gnomes, elves, fire breathing dragons, unicorns, teapots orbiting between the earth and mars, and many others.
In order to believe in any of the creatures on that list, you would likely want proof. You would not feel the need to disprove them. Instead, you would ask someone claiming they exist to prove their point. So, with respect to god, you prove it! You are the one making the extraordinary claim.
I also have a question. This thread was started because some books on science and atheism have become quite popular.
Does anyone believe that the popularity of these books is at all relevant to their truth?
I believe these books are largely true regardless of the level of their sales. I also believe the Bible to be a heaping, steaming mound of dung despite the fact that it is the number one best seller of all time.
So, I’m a little curious why the popularity of these books becomes such a heated discussion. Any discussion based on the popularity, rather than the evidence, of a book reminds me of the old quote:
Eat shit. A billion flies can’t all be wrong.
what if everyones right….we make our own reality.
#45, noname
Lately you have written some great, very articulate posts. This, however, is where I disagree.
Your list including Stalin and Mao is a bit slanted.
First, neither actually killed people with the exception of during the revolutions. Most leaders seldom get their hands dirty.
Second, the Communism they set up met all the aspects of a religion with the exception of a supreme being.
Third, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other revolutionaries were seen as “new” deities and genocides were committed in their name. Pol Pot, Hoxha, Castro, and others only imitated what Stalin and Mao did. They were the State.
Fourth, both Russia (USSR) and China had violent histories of brutal leadership. Death for failing to obey a bureaucrat in the name of the Czar or Emperor was very common and usually swift.
Fifth, without excusing any atrocity, what the West has done is no better. We purposely killed Native Americans simply because they were less “human” then us. And we had god on our side to do it and they were in our way of “Manifest Destiny”.
Don’t confuse all religions and religious motives solely with the Christian religion. When human decency is over ridden by fanatical beliefs that your’s is the better belief is when we get these genocides.
And, in the end this turns into a “prove it! no, you prove it!” arguement. I can’t prove God. I can only attempt to answer my own questions in life based on the premise that life isn’t random, capricious, and unevitably final. That makes me a happier and more comfortable person. If belief that there is no God makes you happy and comfortable, then Great! I just don’t see how…