Against Toleration: Natalie Angier reviews "The End of Faith"

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/books/review/05ANGIERL.html
...

It's not often that I see my florid strain of atheism expressed in any document this side of the Seine, but ''The End of Faith'' articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood. Sam Harris presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible. A doctoral candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles, Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America: ''We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.' '' To cite but one example: ''Jesus Christ -- who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens -- can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?'' The danger of religious faith, he continues, ''is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.''

Right now, if you are even vaguely observant, or have friends or grandmothers who are, you may be feeling not merely irritated, as you would while reading a political columnist with whom you disagree, but deeply offended. You may also think it inappropriate that a mainstream newspaper be seen as obliquely condoning an attack on religious belief. That reaction, in Harris's view, is part of the problem. ''Criticizing a person's faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person's ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.''

A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, Harris says, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. In Harris's view, such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international comity, the Good Books that undergird the world's major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. What religiousts forget

is that their concept of spirituality is merely that-a concept. Could it be if there is a God, It is far different in quality than anything so far imagined?

[Eric J in MN]

2. We were attacked on September 11, 2001 by people against

the US policy of stationing troops and private security in Saudi Arabia.

[BurtWorm]

3. ...whose faith in an afterlife made it possible for them to commit

evil as though it were an act of supreme good.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds of civilians in a terrorist

attack in the US, and he wasn't a religous fanatic.

[BurtWorm]

10. He actually was a religious fanatic (an Identity Christian)

but I'm not making the point that only religious people are capable of evil. It seems to me that ideology of any kind is a sort of faith that can lead toward extremism, toward a belief that it is the one true faith.

[telamachus]

15. Including the belief that there

is no basis for god/religion. :)

[BurtWorm]

19. There is clearly a basis for belief in God. But it isn't divine.

It's natural selection. ;)

[telamachus]

23. The world that sees the

beauty of scientific inquiry is not diminished by the beauty that spirituality reveals. A world that sees the world through both eyes is at its zenith .

Science may reveal the fabric of our universe but our fullest potential, as our evolution puts us, is revealed in the divine reality of our greatest (very nearly infinite but not quite) fantasy.

If we can use science to reveal the nature of reality why can't we use religion to guide our existence.

in the subtleties lies the core of our agreements.

[BurtWorm]

33. There's no reason not to use religion to guide one's existence if it works

I don't begrudge anyone that. But it's false to claim one needs religion to be guided through existence. It's false to claim one needs religion at all. Some people clearly don't.

[RainDog]

29. And what reason did they give for being against

stationing troops?

Because SA is the site of Mecca and Medina. In other words, a religious reason.

And the U.S. played to Islamic fundamentalism by touting the war against Russia in Afghanistan as a jihad, thus fueling even more justification for using religion to kill to achieve earthly ambitions.

in the mix of religion and politics, religion is always subservient to earthly power.

it is used by the politically powerful to manipulate people.

...one of THE most important reasons to keep your faith to yourself and not try to impose it upon other people.

[wryter2000]

4. Non-believer here

This kind of arrogance gives my kind a bad name. It's monumentally unfair to play and re-play and re-play all the horrid things done in the name of faith and ignore the good. And there is plenty of good.

Anyone remember that the bravest people fighting Central American dictators are priests and nuns? Anyone ever heard of Desmond Tutu? Yes, the Vatican ignored the plight of the Jews in Europe under Hitler, but most of the non-Jews who hid Jews and helped them did so because that's what their God told them to do.

Surrendering faith to hateful fundies is a mistake. There are lots of wonderful people made even more wonderful by their belief in a greater power. Lots of those folks hang out here.

All I want from people of faith is that they not force their beliefs on me, each other, or our government. I don't want them thinking I look on them with contempt just because I don't believe in the things they do.

End of rant.

[BurtWorm]

5. Why is criticism of religion arrogance

but intolerance of that criticism NOT arrogance?

[EST]

6. Thou hast asked the great imponderable...

Good for you!

[telamachus]

17. Imponderable....

when I partake it is quite ponderable...see beyond :)

[telamachus]

16. Is it criticism when

a group shows a defensive reaction to being judged and disliked to the point that another would ridicule a persons belief?

It is those who proclaim that another persons belief is wrong that are indeed throwing the first stone. It is fine to have your own beliefs and it is fine to tell others about them but it is outright rude and IMO dangerous to judge others who believe differently. Wen you proclaim with godlike absolutness that some philosophy is worthless or dangerous you cross the line; you have become an offence. You have become the atacker.

Now we all know that some beliefs can be seem as bad to begin with but aside from those assumptions it is safe to say that there is always a range of individual group philosophy which leads to the question: Can you judge a whole group based on the actions of a minority (mathematical) of the group?

Of course we would all agree that that would not be fair to the others.

Intolerance is an emotion that can and often does, lead to hate which can lead to some way bad and nasty places.

I find it very amusing to see a presumed liberal use the same tactics that the far right uses. The whole "we don't have to tolerate them" thing is a tactic that the 'Cristian fundamentalist' use to hate Homosexuals and others ...disgusting ignorant speech IMO..speech that I fully believe should exist even if it is only a reminder of extremism.

[BurtWorm]

20. The faithful threw the stone long ago.

It's only in the last 150 years that atheism was not considered a crime.

I am not arguing for intolerance of religion. I'm arguing against toleration of religion's more dangerous products, including its most dangerous one: closed-mindedness.

You can argue that I am closed-minded because my atheism precludes my being open to God. But until there's parity in the culture between atheism and theism--and we are very far from being there--I can't take that argument seriously.

[telamachus]

22. Ahh the old 'he hit me first'

logic...sorry don't play with it ... it is the closeminded who do not see the subtle details..

You make many assumption and simplifications out of very complex issues.

Leave the hate behind holding grudges never did anyone any good.

Peace.

[BurtWorm]

34. What "hate" are you talking about?

Is any criticism of religion "hate?"

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

31. Preach it brother

And spread the word, some will hear and convert to your beliefs and ideals - those that do not are heathen, a little insane, and should be watched.

Maybe the religious fundies are not so different than those who belittle them, both have the same idea - they are right, you are wrong, and those that don't see things the same way they do are watched as dangerous.

So cut through the BS and say it loud 'I am right, my views are superior, and those who are not seeing things the same way are nut jobs that we need to either lock up or watch closely because they are a threat to our kids and lives'

Closed-Mindedness? That is not always what it may seem. You spend a life learning things, you make decisions about what things had good effects and which things had bad ones and then you pass it on. The younger folks have the knowledge but not the experience so they dump a lot of the info and go forth and make the same mistakes. Then thaey pass it along, etc.

Now how does that relate to close-mindedness? Well, when you see that 2+2=4 proven time and again then someone comes along and tells you it dosen't and you refuse to read their new 500 page book on it they might say you are close minded, when in reality you have already ran down that road, know where it goes, and don't choose to run down it again.

Things don't always equal out or work the same though when it comes to people, which leads to conflict of ideals. Example - alcohol. Some folks can drink a little, some cannot stop, some get angry when drunk, others nice or wild. If you grew up around 20 people and half of them were drunks and mean and abused you, you might well decide that drinking is bad for society and people. While this would not always be the case (whereas 2+2=4 always...well usually) it may well be enough of a case for you to wish a law be based around it.

Now we are taking a belief which is not completely scientific and implementing that as a 'human law' - which is where we differ from a science which has universal laws; one has a lab where the same conditions generate the same results whereas the other one can have many different results because the subjects are never able to be the exact same.

And so we enter into belief systems, philosophies, goals for mankind, and so forth. We will always be varied and have different views on where we come from and where we are going. Those who analyze things for themselves may well come to believe in christianity (as i did from being an atheist, et al, at one point in my life) or some other belief. Scientific methods will never reveal all things because not all things can be quantified in a direct manner, like 'which movie was best' and so on. People will always interpret the same data in a different fashion (and this even happens a lot in the scientific community) and such things are not bad (and some might say they are a form of genetic algorithm which is using varied methods to work a solution).

Science can at times brush off things it sees as silly and skeptics say such things as X do not exist. But in so doing they are putting blinders on which can lead to many new fascinating things (like those who seek out machines which put out more than they take in energy wise - the search has produced some interesting results even though the goal is scientifically unsound). I prefer to take the other side of things - ghosts, demons, angels, psychic visions, et al - let's say they are real, our job would be to learn how they operate, speculate on that, do experiments, retry. Sure, it might all be BS and from the minds of wack jobs, but enough people over time have encountered such things that a serious scientific inquiry would be justified (and yet...science seems so close minded. Oh some look into it, but other scientists laugh at them, deride their work, and so forth - these same people who bitch and moan about other people being close-minded and arrogant).

well, I went off ranting again. Sorry bout that :)

[BurtWorm]

32. This is an example of how the religious discuss this issue.

Condescendingly. And we atheists are accused of arrogance! ;)

This is the epitome of a strawman argument: "So cut through the BS and say it loud 'I am right, my views are superior, and those who are not seeing things the same way are nut jobs that we need to either lock up or watch closely because they are a threat to our kids and lives.'"

The strange thing is that theists have controlled the terms of the debate on faith vs. reason for time immemorial, yet they seem to believe it's we who are persecuting them!

What your self-admitted rant demonstrates is an unwillingness to discuss the issue openly, straightforwardly, undefensively. I wonder why you're so unwilling.

[The Straight Story]

45. I think you miss my deeper point

Religion is a catch phrase you're using for an idea which I see as deeper than a surface belief someone professes to. It is but a branch in a common tree of human psychology and philosophy. How people handle their belief (whether religion or some other belief like a political ideology) is something we should look at from all angles and not simply the people who hold a particular view (in this case that there is a god(s)).


The same problem(s) you, and others, see as being evident in the religious fundamentalism of certain groups is a more widespread phenomenon which cuts across ideologies and enters into a wide cross section of people from politics to humanism and beyond. The point of my previous post was to point that out - the core problems which you see with a group goes beyond that group to a more basic level of humanity, it is something we all share but show in different ways, and that perhaps we should look more at ourselves for the answers than look at what we see as the failings/weaknesses of other groups.

I don't look at people here on DU as a religious group (though many may belong to some) as I see the other beliefs which they hold (political, moral, philosophical, et al) and one can see the same type of core behaviors as you can in a 'faith' - bumper stickers for your car, going to rallies, making fun of the enemy 'freepers', demonizing those who you see as not on your side (from bush on down), and...well you get the idea I hope. There are enough parallels on group analysis to see that religion (and the problems you addressed) is but a by product of a larger 'problem' of which we all fall into at some point, but it does not need a 'god' to have the element of faith because many have 'beliefs' without proof (because it is based on human emotion and needs) and they too will group themselves together (like we do on du) and carry out similar actions.

[BurtWorm]

46. There was a good reason why I missed your "deeper point."

Remember the strawman? I didn't imagine it, did I?

Your deeper point is well taken. I wonder if you see the irony of delivering it in such a way as to try to shut up anyone you're trying to make it to. ;)

[The Straight Story]

47. Not trying to shut anyone up

Trying to broaden the analysis to the root level and get below the surface. Religion is only one symptom of the 'problem' (for lack of a better term) of how humans conduct themselves. It can be interesting to study it as a branch and analyze the effects of it but for someone to stand on an adjacent branch from the same root and rip on religion while not seeing that they are in the same position seems 'wrong'.

We all have ideas which we believe in, therefore we see them as the right ones (if we saw them as wrong, we would reject them and not hold them). So if my idea is different from yours than whose is right? Well obviously all this is dependent on the framework which you create and the results you wish to obtain, and even then the one which seems most logical now could be the worst one over a time interval.

There is a difference in trying to 'shut someone up' and trying to migrate their analysis to a broader scope for the benefit of both parties. Saying you think they should drop discussing something could be seen as your trying to limit their input but in reality you may well be attempting to save them, and yourself, some time by not going over something in a narrow scope.

Basically - I value your, and others', input into the whole thing. I just don't see the need to focus on religion because the problem is one of a much wider scope. Let's discuss the whole spectrum of how and why people do things individually and in a group of like minded people from those who are christian to people on DU, democrats, and so forth. Religion is but one piece of this pie of humanity and how/why it does things, I simply want to put us all together and strip away the veneer of superiority of one group over another as it appears they all do the same thing on some basic levels (and those things are the ones being adressed in a non-direct way).

Religion is not the problem, human nature is. And even if we did away with all faiths and religions we would still have the same problems - so lets look at the root causes. Together :)

[K-W]

8. It isnt arrogance in the slightest.

It is ignoring a stigma. A stigma that religious beliefs shouldn't be subjected to the same scrutiny as non-religious beliefs. It isnt at all arrogance anymore than anyone's beliefs are arrogance.

[wryter2000]

11. If you want to talk about Biblical literalism

Do so with my blessing. It is ignorance to think of Genesis as an accurate portrayal of the development of the cosmos. Anyone looking for resurrection as a solution to health care is an idjit.

But there are a lot of folks who have transcended literal belief in a document that was written who knows how many thousands of years ago to find something deeper. They still find strength and hope in the underlying message. And the message is often a force for good.

To someone who wants proof of anything before they believe it, prove this statement to me. "William Shakespeare was one of the greatest writers in the English language." There's no scientific proof for that statement, and yet it would meet with virtually unanimous agreement. Some things aren't amenable to scientific proof. When you encounter them, imho, it's worthwhile to show a little humility.

[BurtWorm]

12. But you can define "great" so that the case for WS being it

can be made, if not with scientific accuracy, at least with reason, rather than faith. It's not a good analogy to a statement about the existence of God or an afterlife, for example.

[wryter2000]

13. The only way you can define great

would be by appealing to some kind of survery of what people think is great. (Believe me, my field is personality testing. I know from surveys.) From there it takes a leap of...faith...to assume that what people think is great equals greatness.

It's an indirect sort of proof that no physicist would ever consider valid. Only us humble psychologists consider that sort of measure a measure of greatness.

[BurtWorm]

18. That isn't true. You're not trying to prove an absolute,

you're trying to make a reasonable case, a case for Shakespeare's "greatness" based on reason. You might, for example, define greatness as "worthy of study," in which case you can do a survey of courses, books, articles, theses, etc., on English writers and see how well Shakespeare fares in that regard--just by sheer quantity of pages devoted to him. In other words, you can test empirically for Shakespeare's "greatness" as long as you define the term. And the main reason you can do that is that you have material to make your case. It doesn't have to be based entirely on abstractions.

[K-W]

26. Believe what you want. Doesnt mean someone who questions your beliefs

is being arrogant.

I am not getting into your argument for belief. Because that would be counter productive to our discussion. The point is that you are being just as arrogant in asserting your faith as anyone would be in questioning it.

[RainDog]

30. evaluation of "greatness" in writing

is not a science, and no one ever claimed it was. yet, for people today to try to claim that Shakespeare is still alive and writing would defy scientific fact and would require some sort of suspension of reality in order to believe this, and thus should be subject to examination if the claim is made as a literal one, and especially if someone were trying to claim some sort of privledged status based upon this "fact."

as far as determining greatness in a writer, Shakespeare's use of language, not simply a poll of some group of people, is one among many reasons he is still honored.

In order to evaluate Shakespeare as a writer, in other words, you have to have some knowledge of past and future writing, the techniques of writing, and how various writers have used these successfully and not.

Just because someone likes a writer, that does not make him or her great. Dan Brown, for instance, is not a great writer, a point I could argue, but won't, even though he's very popular right now (i.e. people you might likely poll might likely say he's great.)

But back to Shakespeare-- he took on subjects that dealt with a variety of powerful emotions...the very stuff of the human condition, and presented them in such a way that they resonate to this day. He got down to the guts and bones of the human experience and didn't make it easy for his audience. (I'm talking about tragedies and histories here.)

his language is now archaic, but the form, iambic pentameter, requires a certain skill and he showed a particular talent for this, as well as a talent for wordplay and for using folk myths (King Lear is a Cinderella story, in fact) and re-cast these folk tales as dramas that spoke to both educated and uneducated people in his day, and for some people, he continues to speak to them.

One sign of greatness is how often you are ripped off. I'd say Shakespeare has been ripped off and riffed on more than the average hack.

The stories of the great religions are also often the stuff of great writing when they deal with the human condition. That does not mean that they should be the basis for nuclear war, however.

Any story can be co-opted for use by those in power. Take Shakespeare, for instance, as Olivier playing Henry II. I believe that story was used to spur Britain during WW II.

The problem is when people are dogmatic about their beliefs and take myth as literal renderings of reality. This is childish, and I, for one, don't want children who believe in Santa Claus balancing the federal budget with the idea that ole Santa will bail them out if they're good.

[eurolefty]

7. That's why many people are scared of the U.S.

Religious nuts and nuclear weapons is not a good combination.

[wryter2000]

14. Agreed

And for my last post before I hit my hammock, you're 100% correct, too. Religious nutism is dangerous. Add powerful weapons, and you have real danger. :scared:

[sweetheart]

21. World's major religions without hinduism and buddhism.. HA!

The view of religion espoused suggests a basis that is not agreeing
with what religions like buddhism are.

You can believe whatever you want and be a buddhist. Beliefs are not
in opposition to seeing all of life as sacred, and holding awakening
in every moment as the crux "is"ness of life.

The first amendment is right. Leave freedom of religion alone and
only badger people who impose themselves rudely on others. Religion
is broader and more complex and a book on traditional religions can
possibly outline. Beat up someone else... religion itself is not the
culprit... focus on corporate personhood if you must beat up a baddie.

[Veggie Meathead]

24. As a lay person I will put it in plain words. Most people who are

deeply observant practitioners of their religions, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or any other are real pains in the ass. It is no different from Republicans who spout off about Supply Side Economics.Both these beliefs require a willing suspension of disbelief.This is why I think it would be hard to run into any rational human being who believes in these claptrap ideas, sort of like finding people who drive a Gremlin for its looks and performance.

[smirkymonkey]

25. Thank you!

I am tired of the idea that one's religion is a topic that is off limits for rational debate.

Religion as an institution is a sham. For a number of reasons, which I won't go in to here. The personal spiritual beliefs of an individual are something I can respect, as long as they do not interfere with anyone else's right to live as they see fit.

Most of the insanity that goes on in this world has it's roots in religion and the infallibility and rightness of a particular brand of religion. I think the time has come for humanity to transcend the need for these external structures and to go within for spritual truths.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

40. I am a deeply observant believer in those 'claptrap' ideas

...and I would like to think that I am fairly rational...nice to meet you :hi: . The only thing I don't really care for is being called an irrational person whose willing suspension of disbelief has lead him to faith in claptrap.

I enjoy a good debate on religion with someone who is willing (no, make that able) to keep from belittling something that is precious to me...as faith is to many people. I like to know why people believe what they believe and if they want to know why I believe a certain way, I will gladly share. But, once the name calling starts (and yes, irrational is a name and not a very pleasant one) you might as well stop...

It seems (and I could be sorely mistaken) that most of the people on this board and others that have such negative feelings toward religion really don't have a problem with the religion, but the people who practice their faith in a way that they find either offensive or just annoying. I cannot apologize for the behaviour of all the adherents to my flavor of religion, but I am deeply sorry it has left such a bad taste in your mouth.

Just try to remember, when having a discussion on heated topics, before you phrase a statement a particular way, put that same statement to your beliefs and check your offense-o-meter. If it tweaks you in the least, it is likely to end your conversation in a bad manner. And, where religion is concerned, a statement like your post above can be twisted to be about your faith (or lack thereof) and be no more or less provable.

Lack of faith in one thing is proof of faith in another...

theProdigal

[sweetheart]

41. Religious faith is private

I'm sorry that people are small and tend to cluster in groups around
various flags, be the flag a religion or a nation state. It is
small hearted. Faith teaches me that there is no divide amongst
people when you meet heart to heart.

I'm sorry that your experiences lead you to tar all religion with
the same brush, and the rationalists are running their own religion
as well, whether they preech aetheism or not. To say that having
a blank white flag is better than a flag with stars and stripes or
a buddhist wheel is absurd. Putting down the flag and meeting
another unarmed is faith, and trust in god, goodwill, or whatever
"your" religion calls that.

Funnily, i could have written your post 25 years ago. You might yet
find that "claptrap" can bring great joy in to your life, and it is
your freedom of religion to do so. I would hope that even a
rationalist would come to respect that the call for tolerance that
is the first amendment, be respected.

[Terran]

67. Nice stereotype there

Most people who are deeply observant practitioners of their religions, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or any other are real pains in the ass.

So how do you define "most"? 70%? 80%? What utter claptrap. I know lots and LOTS of devout Christians who are perfectly nice people and they don't talk about their religion unless asked to. Your statement is just as destructive as anything a religiously insane person might say.

And I, by the way, do not practice any religion, and have considerable disdain for organized religion. But I don't like negative stereotypes being tossed around in the name of liberalism.

[BurtWorm]

35. The First Amendment also protects speech.

;)

[sweetheart]

43. and listening

If it is the right to listen as well, then i am happy.

Speaking freely is something i'm all for. In this campaign time,
this site is being hit by undecided voters of all sorts.

I hope we can tone down the religious wars on DU to a temperate tone
so that those folks will feel welcome, whether they be church
attending prodestants or heathens. ;-)

Abusing free speech to shout fire in a theatre is poor judgement;
shouting the stupidity of religion when most americans are religious... on a campaign website... hmmm..

I have no problem personally, but i think some posters here, not
necessarily yourself, need to consider whom they might offend before
hitting post message

If we don't win this election, this sacred right to free speech and
free religion will be cut back. That is my deepest concern. The
first amendment, more than anything else, IMO, makes america great.

[BurtWorm]

44. One thread about religion on DU will not scare off voters from Kerry.

I don't think swing voters spend any time here, do you really? I think if you visit DU, you know whom you're voting for, one way or the other. (Except maybe for those who are swinging between Nader and Kerry, and they're not likely to be turned off of Kerry on the basis of a thread about religion, are they?)

I don't understand why we have to walk on eggshells around this subject. When are we permitted to exercise our First Amendment rights? Why not now, now that we actually have them?

[sweetheart]

52. yea, you're right

I get caught up reading tea leaves on DU, and i see freepers
pushing threads that are clearly negative and intended to be divisive. I see old DU'ers having free speech chat as usual,
and i see a new generation of DU'ers pumped to win this election.

Part of me wishes that DU would be perfectly amicable to win over
voters and inspire discouraged democrats who feel beaten up by
liars and smear-propagandists. Another part would not sacrifice
free speech for nothing and no one.

Expressing the following topics is hot for these reasons:

1. religion bashing
2. discussing tax and reforming tax
3. doubting the democratic ability to win in november
4. bashing "our" troops
...

surely there are more... you can't start any of those topics without
having your intent called in to question by other DU'ers, as some
of "us" see the ontological choice of creating the discussion thread
in the first place as potentially working against the campaign
need towards keeping democratic underground bouncy and a positive
support "sacred space" for winning in november...

and then the first amendment voice says: "aaahh humbug, write
whatever you want... its free speech".

[BurtWorm]

76. Sweetheart, I appreciate your last post.

I didn't see it until just now. I try not to think about the freeps unless I want to pull their chains.

As for bashing religion, I apologize if threads like this seem inflammatory or hurt the feelings of religious DUers, but I find faith-thought to be a problem in a country that won't consider a candidate if he's not a "person of faith." A nation of grown ups would not have that as one of its top criteria for choosing a leader. That this nation does says a lot about many of its irrational choices, especially in foreign policy.

[MisterP]

27. fundamentalism is always stale and ridiculous

even if it is atheism

[K-W]

28. That is one of the more rediculous statements I have ever read.

Atheism doesnt have fundementalism, because atheism is NOT a belief system.

[uhhuh]

37. Is that a Fact?

There may be no other doctrine to Atheism other than a lack of belief in God, but that IS a belief system isn't it?

Sure, there are many flavors of Atheism, but you have to not believe in god to be one don't you, or can you be an Atheist and believe in God? If you can't, then Atheism is a belief system that requires an adherence to the belief in the non-existence of God, doesn't it?

[BurtWorm]

39. Is not believing in Santa Claus a belief system?

There are two kinds of atheism: weak atheism, which is lack of belief in God, and strong atheism, which is belief that there is no God. Weak atheism is similar to lack of belief in Zeus or lack of belief in magick (as opposed to magic, i.e., the art of illusion). Or lack of belief in the portal to Hell in the back of my next door neighbor's closet. It's not a belief. It's a lack of belief. Strong atheism, on the other hand, is a positive belief, similar to a positive belief in God.

Most atheists are weak atheists. They simply don't believe in God. Many of us tried. Some of us still try. But we share a lack of positive belief in the supernatural.

[K-W]

51. That isnt really true.

The weak vs strong athiesm destinction is actually just an extension of the myth the other poster was propagating. There is no such thing as strong atheism, or weak atheism for that matter.

If I say "Unicorns do not exist." does that make me a strong aunicornist? The fact of the matter is that the statement "God does not exist" means that there is not enough evidence of the existance of god to catagorize him amongst the existing. It is a perfectly rational and defensible statement.

The strong/weak athiesm destinction is an invention of arguments with religious people like this:

Athiest: There is no God.
Mr. X: That is just your belief system.
Athiest: It isnt a belief, I just dont believe in god.
Mr. X: But you made a positive statement, god does not exist.
Athiest: umm, yah, but I didnt mean that
Mr. X: I win, weeeeeeeee
.......
Mr. Y: Hey silly athiest, you think you are so special, you just have your own belief system.
Athiest: Oh no I don't, I am not one of those athiests who says god doesnt exist, those are the ... strong athiests. I am a ... weak athiest... yah, thats the ticket.
Mr. Y: I still win, because im a believer, weeeee.

So through the course of arguments between athiests and the religious, mostly online, the whole strong athiest myth has been developed. The fact of the matter is that all athiests are simply non-believers. That some of them choose to phrase it different ways to avoid falling into a rhetorical trap is not that important and doesnt deserve a reclassification.

[uhhuh]

73. Yes. Not believing in Santa Claus

Is a component of a belief system.

It doesn't necessarily mean that your individual belief system has to be codified or agreed to others or many, but not believing in Santa Claus is a component of a belief system. Most share that component.

[K-W]

50. Not believing isnt a belief system. You are spreading a myth.

To have a belief, you need to believe in something.

Now you didnt even bother to hide the condradiction. You went right ahead and claimed that not believing was a belief system, making your statement self-evidently false.

Most people spreading this particular lie do a better job of hiding it, they say "Atheist believe that there is no god." Thus phrasing thier lack of belief as a belief. Obviously in the end, it is just a mischarecterization. Atheists do not believe that there is no god, they simply dont believe there is a god.

Im sorry that you got sucked in by this particular rhetorical myth. I am not trying to personally attack you, but this is a dangerous meme in that it seems to make sense to people, especially those who want to believe it, even though it is obviously false.

[uhhuh]

72. It is a belief in the non existence of god.

The atheist can't prove god doesn't exist any more that the theist can prove god does exist.

Not believing something is also part of a belief system, unless you are saying that atheists don't believe in anything at all.

It is a component of a belief system that excludes certain things, namely god.

That there is no specific dogma that one must adhere to in order to be considered an atheist is not true.

Can one be an atheist and believe in god?

If not, why not?

On edit:

I decided to ask what you define "belief" as?

I needed to clarify what we are discussing here.

[mopaul]

36. angels, demons, devils, virgin birth, rising from the dead,

walking on water, magically multiplying food, healing leprosy, floating into heaven, papal infalibility, vows of celibacy, commandments from god, creationism, 72 virgins in paradise, heaven, hell, christ's return, end of the world, mecca, holy land, holy monuments, holy relics, holy books,holy wars, damnation, reincarnation, sacred cows, sacred rivers, snake handling, speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, prayer, circumsision, forbidden foods, human sacrifice, mojos, ju ju's, curses, potions, ghosts, robes, tall hats, white collars, habits, rituals, incense, giant cathedrals, statues, millemium long grudges, auras, chakras, past lives, karma, monks, nuns, priests, mullahs, ayatollahs, wizards, witches, warlocks, and supreme beings might be considered silly by some. and others see these things as absolute and concrete.

yet, it is possible to live a perfectly normal and productive life without ANY of these beliefs or ideas. it is possible to be utterly benevolant and utterly free of any religion. it is possible for an atheist to be a nice lady or gentleman, unincumbered with thousands of years of silliness.

but who am i to say? im' just a schmuck on a little dirtball on the outer edge of a not particularly interesting galaxy, typing on a keyboard to strangers.

[drhilarius]

38. One danger of unquestioned tolerance.

A few days ago I come home from work (7am) and turn on the TV. Comedy central, much to my dismay, had not yet come on the air, and in its stead was an infomercial. I hear the following dialog-

Man:...so then you'll send them your tape?
Woman: That's right. And on the tape I discuss chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and other cancer treatments.

After hearing this, I think think a tape laying out treatment options is not a bad idea. Then I hear-

Man: So send $19.95 to receiving "Healed Through Faith" : Using prayer to overcome cancer. Where offers liturgical alternatives to conventional cancer treatments.

I got sick. Here was this woman selling snake oil on TV, potentially putting thousands of people at risk just so she could make a buck, and if I were to call her a huckster, a con, then I would be labeled an intolerant atheist bigot. Why? Because I have to respect her ridiculous notion that prayer to some skyman will rid the body of cancer?! Oh, I know some will say "but there have been these instances of blah,blah,blah". Okay I'll give them that, which brings the score to
Cancer cured by skydaddy: @100
Cancer cured by Chemo and Radiation: Millions.
Hmmm, yup, I guess prayer works. So maybe that huckster selling her Cure Cancer tape for $19.95 (so she can buy a new beach house, I imagine)should be heard out and not hauled off to jail like I would if I went out on the street selling "Dr.Hilarius's Kancer Kure", which would, statistically, be just as effective in curing cancer as prayer.

sorry, had to rant.

[Swamp Rat]

42. HAHAHAHA!!!

"''Jesus Christ... can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well."

I believe in alien lizards that are trying to take over the Earth. They have discovered that it is very easy to control humans through their irrational beliefs, unless that irrational belief refers to alien lizards. That's why I'm trying to warn everybody. Stop believing in all that other stuff! Wake up or else the alien lizards will take over!

[LoZoccolo]

48. This book misses the point as certain fanatic atheists do over and over.

It points out some of the hazards of religious fanaticism as a case against all religion, all the while completely ignoring that organized fanatical atheists have killed more people in the last hundred years than religion ever has (and probably will in the next hundred years if such demagoguery continues). It's an "also ran" in the great race of who can commit atrocity, and books like this confuse the issues and ignore larger, more atrocious ones in favor of a panicked seige mentality; that it can fall on this simple observation is pathetic, being itself irrational and emotional.

[BurtWorm]

49. So you've read the book?

I wouldn't call Mao or Stalin fanatical atheists, though I can see why apologists for religion would, as they cover up nicely for the sins of Hitler, the crusades, the Catholic Empire of Isabel and Ferdinand, the Counter-Reformation, the Islamists, the ultra-Zionists, and on and on and on.

[LoZoccolo]

56. If you were being reasonable, you'd notice I wasn't even trying...

...to cover up anything. I'm saying someone doesn't have the moral authority to take some examples of atrocities being committed under the banner of a belief system and use that to attack everyone that shares the belief system when the same could be said in a greater magnitude against that someone.

And I guess it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't call Mao or Stalin fanatical atheists.

[BurtWorm]

74. What's your definition of a fanatical atheist?

A person who is fanatical about atheism or a fanatic who happens to be atheist? Which of these describe Stalin and Mao?

[K-W]

53. That is a lie.

Your statement about athiests killing more people than the religious is just a complete lie. The non-religious are such a small percentage of the world population, that your comment borders on absurdity.

The rest of your post is rather nonsensical. The real problem with the argument is that because human behavior and sociological actions are the result of so many factors, that it is impossible to factually argue that one factor contributes significantly, and if removed would make things better. The only way to prove it would be to try it, and I doubt thats happening any time soon.

Regardless though, your line of attack is disigneous athiest bashing.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Stalin? Mao? Heard of 'em? n/t

[K-W]

57. Everyone else, ever heard of them?

Are you honestly arguing that two governments have killed more than half of the people killed in the last 100 years?

[LoZoccolo]

58. More than those killed in the standard list of atrocities usually given...

...as an argument for the abolition of religion, yes. But I'm not going to argue about one being more wrong than the other by virtue of a body count; I'm saying more like, pot, meet kettle...

[K-W]

61. Then why did you state it wrong earlier?

Excuse me for being weary of someone who mistates something, and then retracts it.

I think a very strong historical case can be made that religion can lead to massive loss of life. Not that it neccessarily has to, and certainly one could argue that we dont need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think you should change to arguing that, because it is a valid point that doesnt involve false smeaers of athiests, or rediculous arguments.

Your arguments of athiest fundementalists, rank right up there with creationists arguing against the religion of scientism. It is a straw man. There is no such thing as a fundementalist athiest.

[LoZoccolo]

62. I didn't state it wrong, and I didn't retract it.

I'm pretty sure you know that I was pointing out the massive hypocrisy of blaming religion in general for atrocities when the same could be said of the materialist philosophy of communism being a factor in the atrocities of Stalin and Mao and a host of smaller-scale communist dictators. I don't agree with the argument made by the book, and I don't agree "all athiests want to be like Mao or Stalin" argument either, because they're about the same (you might recognize this as a sort of proof by contradiction). I'm saying it's hypocritical to make that kind of argument, and a little bit funny, because a parallel argument could be made about athiests that sounds even worse.

[K-W]

66. In your own words:

"organized fanatical atheists have killed more people in the last hundred years than religion ever has"

Now this is a dificult statement to understand, since there is no such thing as organized fanatical atheists. There were organized groups that held atheism as one of a large number of tenets. I dont think any groups organized on thier athiesm have ever killed anyone. And religion hasnt killed anyone itself, religious people have.

But the general gist is that athiests have killed more people than religious people have, which is patently false.

When I pointed that out to you you said:

"More than those killed in the standard list of atrocities usually given as an argument for the abolition of religion, yes."

You implied that you conceded the point since you moved to a more defensible position. Athiest governments have killed more people than a particular list.

If you still beleive that athiests have killed more people than religious people, I stand corrected, you did not retract, but you certainly did state it wrong.

------------------------------------

To respond to the content of your post.

1. The same cant be said of athiests. There isnt nearly enough examples. We have had millions of years of historical records of societies and governments with religion. We have few examples, most from a similar time frame and circumstance of governments and societies without religion. And in those cases, the societies were never really without religion, just some members of the government. So your argument of balance doesnt work, you can say that we dont know enough about athiest societies to know if they would or would not have the same level of killing, but I think that is the author's point... perhaps it is time to find out.

2. Have you read the book, because it sounds like you have assumed the thesis of the book without reading it.

3. "a parallel argument could be made about athiests that sounds even worse" that simply is not true. It might sound worse, but it wouldnt actually be worse.

[LoZoccolo]

69. Wrong.

But the general gist is that athiests have killed more people than religious people have, which is patently false.

Didn't say that.

[LoZoccolo]

70. Also, on the other stuff.

You still think I'm engaged in a pissing contest about who's killed more people as if I think that justifies my position. It doesn't. It demonstrates the absurdity of blaming all of religion for some atrocities, because another absurd argument along the same lines, but of greater magnitude, could be made about athiests.

[Tangledog]

63. A little bashing never hurt anybody

The 20th century tyrannies haven't generally been religiously based. The Khmer Rouge killed more people in an average 2 weeks than Ferdinand and Isabella killed in their whole lives.

In defense of godless societies, there are a few mitigating factors:

a) A lot more people are around today. More potential killers, more targets.

b) Our toys are better. Hitler (not your typical nice Catholic boy), Stalin, Mao, had weapons that Henry V couldn't even dream of.

Of course, numbers can always be used in funny ways. Are the non-religious really such a small percentage, then or now? Just because, say, Russia is historically an Orthodox society, and Russians have historically killed each other in significant numbers, does that mean that all Russians are Orthodox, and that all Russians who joined the NKVD or its Czarist predecessors were priests at heart? Think hard enough, and it gets easy to justify all sorts of stuff.

[K-W]

64. Bashing certainly has hurt people, but anyway,

First off, there are no godless societies. The fact that there were some athiest marxists in power in some countries does not make them godless societies, the populations of the countries remained generally theists throughout.

Secondly, Hitler was a christian. Not a nice catholic boy, but he believed that God was behind him and his quest. He was certainly a theist and bringing him up with Stalin and Mao is clearly misleading.

Yes the non-religious are really such a small percentage.

[LoZoccolo]

65. Not religiously based. Right.

Which is why I'm saying religion/lack of is not the real issue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Believe whatever you want, but...

blanket condemnations of all believers get pretty old.

It's like condemning all scientists for the war crimes of the Nazi and Japanese doctors who experimented on prisoners during World War II.

Most of the stuff that you're condemning is not believed by the average religious Democrat either.

[Joanne98]

59. The current form of religion is incompatible with the 21st century

Either the fundies go or they will destroy all human, animal and plant life. It's that simple. I'm glad someone is taking it head-on. The future path we're on is constant holy wars, and environmental destruction. They're killing everything. They're ALL insane.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Are you advocating genocide?

What do you mean by "either the fundies go"?

[RainDog]

68. oh please.

advocating genocide? are you rational?

your point about "atheists" killing people has some merit. Mao and Stalin were murderous. However, they did not base their justifications on atheism per se, but on political ideologies. The last century showed the horrors of mass-produced death.

And, no, Hitler was not your average Catholic, but if you've even seen Shoah, or if you are familiar with the history of anti-semitism in Europe, which was directly related to the power of the Catholic Church's power, then that statement, too, fails to appreciate the issue at hand, especially in an era when people are again claiming to kill in the name of god for political power.

I don't know the figures, but to make your claim honestly about atheists and killing, you'd have to look at the percentages of people who have been killed compared to the total population in a given century though, wouldn't you?

If there are a hundred people in a village, and ninety of them are killed, that's somewhat different than if there are a million of them and one hundred are killed.

However, I agree with the poster above who noted that it's ideological rigidity that's the problem, whatever the belief system.

The difference between rational, enlightenment thinking and certain literalist/fundamentalists ways of viewing the world is the difference between democracy and divine right of kings.

Democracy was a direct result of a refusal to accept state/religious doctrine without question. Those atheists Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin (okay, maybe the last two were deists, but both views see humans as responsible for rational decisions about how to live in the world) knew the dangers of blind faith.

And I think that's the crux of the issue for most of us who are tired of others shoving their religion down our throats, and lying about the foundation of this nation as "Christian" and electing an idiot who seems bent on mentally unstable self-fulling prophecy and calling it divine.

[J Williams]

71. The premise is flawed in one respect ...

The premise that fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews do not distort and betray their religion is flawed, and, I think, wrong.

Regarding Christianity, when the Romans took over Christianity in the 4th Century there were no original Christian gospels in existence. There were only copies, many of which had been revised and mistranslated, etc. To make matters worse, the Romans revised the gospels to suit their own purposes ... the purposes of a military empire.

Furthermore, what is considered original gospel content was not written until decades after the death of Jesus, up to sixty years later, during which time the stories of Jesus were embellished and the Torah was scoured for evidence that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, and some of that "evidence" was not relevant or appropriate. In other words, the gospels as we now know them contain much that was not actually taught by the Christ Jesus, or accurate about his life.

Regarding Islam, most Muslim fundamentalists are influenced by writings that came after the Qur'an was written, and yet they consider them part of Islam. They are not really, because they were written by men who thought their organized religion was more important than the universal truths that are common to and at the core of all religions.

I learned that from a book that states that the religious bigotry that is causing so much trouble in the world is the consequence of distorted religion. The author submits that there must be a reformation of all religions, because most of them have gotten off track because egocentric men have misled them. He suggests that when they are all reformed they will all be recognized as different paths to the One Source from which we all came and to which we all will return.

The author says that the problem is not religion. It is self-righteous, hypocritical bigots who play god, claim they serve God (or Allah), and distort their religion to justify themselves. The book is titled What IS the World Coming To? (ISBN: 0-595-31998-X) It dispells myths and false beliefs.

[BurtWorm]

75. What you say about Christianity demonstrates

its fundamental irrationality: the fact that today's Christians are guided by a doctrine that was corrupt from nearly the start.