Emotions and physical sensations are not “beliefs.” They are, in fact, empirical observations, which are the polar opposite of faith beliefs.
I can’t participate in the hijack. I’ve already apologized for it.
I’m not sure I buy into evangelical atheism. (Militant, no problem.) Here is a definition of evangelical Christianity, the most telling point being
Only point 2 would even be relevant for atheism, and I just don’t see too many atheists doing outreach. Even here most of the threads that could be considered miltantly anti-religion are started by newbies or worse. I don’t think it is evangelical to respond to one saying how great God is.
The recent spate of books on atheism seem to be personal testimonies and reactions to the growing amount of fundamentalist religion in the US. I don’t consider them evangelical either. Even the Brights seem to have had no intention of proselytizing. So atheists are about as missionary as Unitarians, it seems to me.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Social justice exists only because we believe that it should. We don’t even believe that it does exist, in a lot of cases. Usually, when people talk about it, they really mean mercy, or vengeance depending on their point of view. Neither of those things exists, without belief either. They don’t require proof, or even consensus, but they don’t have physical, measurable existence.
Kindness exists only because we want it to. Love is the same
And if you don’t believe in love, you will find none. But it is a matter of choice.
Tris
Note, however, that the passage to which you linked (addressing evangelicals in Great Britain) is immediately followed by the note:
Going on to say
I think that a salient point is the connection to the word in the sense of preaching “good news” and I really do not see how that does NOT apply to Dawkins, Harris, or Der Trihs.
Certainly, as a group, atheists are far less evangelical (and far less militant) than any number of Christians or Muslims. However, when looking for a term that identifies those (few) atheists who actually do promote the replacement of theistic belief by an atheistic one, I think “evangelical” makes a lot of sense. (For one thing, it avoids having people get upset because they consider “militant” to carry negative connotations.)
Note though that Der Trihs, militant as he is, hardly ever initiates threads on this subject. If evangelicals only evangelized when some atheist came up to them telling them the good news that there is no god, they’d soon forget how to speak.
I suspect that if there were no religious attack on evolution, Dawkins wouldn’t have written his book at all. Most atheism in his main works is in direct response to this kind of thing. I have read neither of Harris’ books, but again I suspect his work is in reaction to the level of fundamentalism in the US. Would a proponent of a native religion, under seige from an onslaught of missionaries and trying to respond, really be considered an evangelical? I don’t think so.
You know, it’s not me who’s calling Baal-worshippers “nutjobs,” so much as i’m quoting the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not worship nutjob Gods” (my translation). Seems to me you are being commanded “to dismiss millions of believers as dupes, fools, and morons, because of their belief.”
It hardly counts as his message if you have to invent the words to pretend he speaks.
And, of course, there is the small matter that cosmosdan has remarked on multiple occasions that he is not a Christian, so trying to call on the bible for what he is “supposed” to believe is pretty much pointless.
You don’t have much of a sense of humor, do you? If use the traditional “false gods,” instead of my parodic “nutjob gods,” it’s still pretty insulting, intolerant and dismissive, isn’t it?
I don’t much care who wrote the Ten Commandments or who believes in them, because this goes to the heart issue of who’s being rude here, and who got the discussion about “false” gods off to a rude start. “I am the Lord your God, and I say that other gods suck donkey balls, but don’t you dare say that about me because then you’ll be rude.”
Aren’t.
Interesting exegesis. Which other critical methods do you recognise as worthy?
I’m sorry–did I identify a critical method as worthy somewhere?
Clearly my mistake. The leap from
to
is better described as delirious.
You don’t think “Thou shalt have no false gods before thee” is rude to idol-worshippers?
No, it’s not rude, and if you can’t see the difference between calling someone’s belief “false” and calling their belief “nutjob,” we may be getting close to the disconnect.
Daniel
Thats awfully considerate of you. This is pretty interesting. I recant. Feel free.
Interesting. How so. How would this relate to people who describe their belief as a feeling?
What about our subconscious? I’ve often wondered How our subconscious needs and desires might direct our beliefs.
The Xian god is a false god: it is steeped in untruth, from beginning to end, and people who believe in this false god, and the concept of him, much less the worship of this false, false, false god, must cease immediately.
You have a problem with this commendment that I give unto you, Daniel?
All I’m seeing here are reverses and evasion. I’m done with p r r.
Most of the time when this line of reasoning is being trotted out, that’s EXACTLY the sentiment being set forth. “Who the hell do those people think they are, denying my god when I have humbly accepted the word of God, Allah, The Great Turtle, etc., as truth? What arrogant bastards!”