I’d say that’s a much more fair take on his position. I think it’s also worth noting that he and many people like him are aware there are costs of getting there various ways.
Well, yes, they are different people. But there is a distinct difference between Graham and Robertson and Dawkins and O’Hair, in that there is not really any meaning to the idea that they necessarily share or argue over a specific common ideology. They might agree on some things and disagree on others, but only in the sense that any two people might. The first pair, unlike the second, at least have some element of, by a common belief claim, of laying claim to a common ideology.
I think Dawkins has one of very many good points when he argues that many of the battles religions have fought are over issues that are basically so obscure and unintelligible that they seem downright absurd. I still can’t imagine people going to war and jailing and burning people over the issue of whether Jesus was made of some different “essence” than regular flesh or the correct interpretation of the Trinity, but in fact people did just that.
He also is careful to ascribe this tendency to religion only insofar as religion has long nurtured ethics of dogmatic certainty even over completely irrational and nonsensical issues. Anyone can be guilty of this, religious or not. The antidote is liberal science, which nurtures the ethic that discussion must always be ongoing, and that truth is an ever contingent outcome of a decentralized process rather than something anyone or any thing can hold and command.
Riiiight. Because having your children taken away from you by the state is a blessing and being a despised minority is a real blessing.
It is nearly midnight here, and before I sleep I must fullfill my heartelt obligation of thanking all of you who have posted into and read this thread.
If it is true (and count me among those who believe/wish to believe it so) that “love comes in at the eye,” and that (theoreticaly/poetically so in my case) “God does not love: God is Love;” with my eyes glazed over at the mulit-post Great Debates atheism threads, lasic surgery much less God’s Love could not penetrate the glaze on my eyes after trying to make sense of the issue.
Would that my ass glazed as easily as my eyes; ere I might drop trou & slide smoothly through life as if it were love’s young dream.
And would that atheism were not a forsaking, but rather an alternative (but not compulsive) occulus viewable to all; Faithful and atheist alike, as valid and beautiful as Saint Francis of Assisi’s (San Francisco…Cisco! “Coherence and Its Discontents”) beatitude: * “Lord make me an instrument of Thy peace”*
…with an equally valid “Nothing, make me an instrument of thy Nothingness.”
And in this spirit, I also thank those who’ve contributed to those endless, dreary atheism threads. Your efforts have made Nothing absolutley clear.
The hell? I thought this thread was about defending theological positions. Let me check… Hey, it is! Stop wanking at me just because you see my name attached to a post. I’m not saying it’s easier to live as an atheist than it is to live as a theist; I’m saying it’s just as hard to defend a theistic worldview in an intellectual debate as it is to defend an atheistic worldview.
Plus, you get to use the cool article with its delicate elision. We have to use the default one with its awkward epenthesis.
Liberal, your post did seem to be saying being a theist was harder than being an athiest. Not that i’d disagree in some cases, but either way it followed the “You think this is bad? Try doing this!” format.
You can’t say that. They might have done it for purely political reasons instead of theological/political ones anyway.
Even if Islam and Christianity didn’t exist, there would still be economic and political differences between the East and West; the world isn’t homogenous, with religion being the only difference between people and nations and tribes.
If there was no religion, we’d just find something else to fight about.
You think being an atheist and defending your position in a theological debate is bad? Try being a theist and defending your position in a theological debate.
The OP is talking about theological debates: “I’m not smart enough to follow all the logistic handstands that go on in the threads on atheism. I can’t defend my atheism. And even if I did, your eyes would glaze over after 20 words, the same as mine do reading your posts”
It’s not talking about the squalid plight of atheists in society.
Fair enough. But I think the conclusion I drew from it was a reasonable one, too, considering that the posters before you were talking about not only the OP but also about just being an athiest. Anyway, i’m sorry to mischaracterise your opinion.
“Squalid plight”? I’m being polite, here. There’s no need for sarcasm.
You may be correct in a very general sense, but wrong with regards to the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombing in general. If the Middle East was atheist, Buddhist, or Jainist then the towers would still be standing in all likelihood, Osama would be in a palace somewhere receiving his daily blowjob, and we probably wouldn’t be discussing how to mesh Buddhism and liberal democracy or talking about a “clash of civilizations” or freaking out at the idea of a Jainist society acquiring long range nuclear weapons.
May I submit that the detection of sarcasm might betray a larger issue, and explain why you saw what you did in my post to the OP. I was not being sarcastic. I have a history of defending atheists against theists, and in particular Christians. I know that they are a six pack and a pickup truck away from being bashed as badly as any homosexual.
Well, no, actually. There’s been threads about South Park before: they’ll make reasoned opinionated fun of some groups, then suddenly go off on a hate-speech tirade about, say, how all niggers are criminals or how kikes rule the media. “Making fun” and “out and out hate speech and lies” are not the same thing.
I understand your point, but I repectfully disagree.
Maybe I’m just embittered by the arguments I keep having with my friends (one in particular) who keep painting suicide bombers as desperate paupers who are using the only power they have to fight injustice. This is as opposed to religious zealots who are determined to crush the Zionist regime and erase the Jews once and for all from the Holy Land. They keep insisting to me that it is fundamentally an economic and political, not religious, conflict. So, which is it? :dubious: You can’t have it both ways.
The 9/11 attackers were well educated and well off financially. The leaders of many terrorist organizations are also well educated and wealthy. Many suicide bombers have engineering degrees from western universities.
As Sam Harris points out, it’s quite possible to be intelligent and educated enough to understand how to make a nuclear bomb and still irrational enough to believe the 72 virgins and death to the enemies of the prophet and coverting the entire world to Islam by the sword shit.
Sure you can. Just take the violence that occurs elsewhere in the world due to economic and political pain (where are the Tibetan, African, or Chechen suicide bombers?) and then multiple it tenfold using the death cult ideas of Islam.
I recommend The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I’ve been thinking of making a thread ever since I read it because I found his predictions of future Muslim/western interactions debate worthy but I don’t think the time is right…
Er, what did you check? Because you’re wrong. It’s not that specific.
Given that you didn’t quote anything, but just tossed out a one sentence quip, it’s hard to see how you have any justification for complaining that I misunderstood you.
I’m not sure what that means, but okay. That was what you were saying and in that case, I don’t see anything for me to comment on.
Once again, with feeling from the OP: “I’m not smart enough to follow all the logistic handstands that go on in the threads on atheism.” That’s from the OP. He meant “logic” rather than “logistic”. Maybe that’s what threw you.
Did you get whiplash from that? I mean, you just finished declaring the OP to be too vague for my interpretation of it, and now you want to claim a right understanding of something you’re describing as the vaguest of the vague — a contextless quip without citation. Goddamn, you’re two-faced. (By the way, I was the fifth respondent to the thread, and was speaking directly to the OP, so the context was obvious.)
Well, just what is it, exactly? This proclivity you have for munching on my ass? And how can you not know what it means to defend a worldview in a debate? I mean, your track record is 100% as far as I can recall. Lib posts -> Apos posts biting response -> Lib clarifies the obvious -> Apos shrugs as he exits shitstorm. You’re a fucking troll.
Nothing threw me. It’s just that neither the OP nor the discussion that followed nor the threads the OP was referring too were that strictly literalistic and focused.
No, sorry. Responding to an unspecified, and THUS, broad, claim about being an atheist vs. a theist because you never bothered to specify what you meant makes perfect sense. You just don’t want it to because you want to justify getting so upset about it. There’s nothing to be upset about. You weren’t very specific, so I responded to the claim in general, as written. It turns out you mean something much more specific, and with that I have no particular judgment on. Case closed.
You’re so far the only one that thought it was, apparently.
I don’t know what you mean, but then I suppose I invent the same accusation about you to me. Didn’t you subsequently, without me referencing you in any way at all, snipe at me in a GD thread? I’m not out after you at all and I don’t know why you think so. How many of my recent posts have been about or to you? Not many that I can think of.
Because the issue is a mess when it comes to talking about atheism and theism as worldviews. Atheism qua atheism isn’t any particular worldview at all, and if theism is, then it’s only barely. I suppose theism might be harder to defend because it makes claims it has to defend, but because of the confusing way in which that all works out comparing theism to atheism, I’m not really sure it makes much sense to lump them that way in that context.
I think you’re hysterically overreacting to something you are mostly just imagining. I don’t have a vendetta against you. You’re a pretty interesting and insightful guy on again, off again. When I see something I disagree with, I do so. Maybe you’re paying too much attention to yourself.
Review this very thread. It’s bitching about the glut of atheism threads. Note those in it that are fucking debating atheism in a thread saying some of us are sick and tired of all the atheism debates. Those are some of the MAB members.
When was the last time I started a thread on atheism or bitching about theism?
If you don’t like discussion on topics, however, perhaps don’t raise them yourselves on a discussion board, or ignore those responding to others who make claims and arguments?
I believe it is a mischaracterization to call theistic debates either literalistic or focused. They can emcompass anything from physicalism to pantheism.
I thought you closed the case in your last post, but here it continues.
And so your grasp of logic is as weak as your grasp of analogic. Two — two! — people, including yourself have weighed in about having a misunderstanding or finding anything cryptic about my post. And you take that as evidence of some overwhelming consensus. Typical.
I have visited GD twice since Buck’s warning to me. Once was by accident. I thought I was in Cafe Society (where the thread was soon moved.) The other was from a search on “messenger”. I saw your post taking insult from a reference to “liberal friends”. Much like the inference you took from my post here, I thought it was way out in left field. No pun intended.
You’re tap dancing. Pretending that you don’t understand philosophical claims. Making up shit about “atheism qua atheism”. All this after pretending not to understand a perfectly cogent point about debates between theists and atheists.
Maybe that’s what it is. You wish you were me. Just leave me the fuck alone, okay? If you can’t control yourself, then just say you disagree when you disagree. Stop dragging it down to shit like this with your cryptic quips like: “Riiiight. Because having your children taken away from you by the state is a blessing and being a despised minority is a real blessing.” followed by these useless “I’m done with this” multi-sequenced replies. Just be done. Stop typing.
That ain’t the point. The MAB is a fictional entity created for mild comedic flavor. Qualification for membership is at my sole discretion. If it makes you feel any better, you can start a Posts-too-much-wacky-hippie-lawyer-dude-with-extra-scifi/fantasy-geekieosity club, and list me as a member.
Maybe that’s what it is. You wish you were me. Just leave me the fuck alone, okay? If you can’t control yourself, then just say you disagree when you disagree. Stop dragging it down to shit like this with your cryptic quips like: “Riiiight. Because having your children taken away from you by the state is a blessing and being a despised minority is a real blessing.” followed by these useless “I’m done with this” multi-sequenced replies. Just be done. Stop typing.