An Atheist Manifesto

[Yollam]

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

An Atheist Manifesto

A Dig led by Sam Harris

Update: (2/08/2006 1:35 p.m. EST) Read Sam Harris’ additional arguments about The Reality of Islam

Editor’s Note: At a time when fundamentalist religion has an unparalleled influence in the highest government levels in the United States, and religion-based terror dominates the world stage, Sam Harris argues that progressive tolerance of faith-based unreason is as great a menace as religion itself. Harris, a philosophy graduate of Stanford who has studied eastern and western religions, won the 2004 PEN Award for nonfiction for The End of Faith, which powerfully examines and explodes the absurdities of organized religion. Truthdig asked Harris to write a charter document for his thesis that belief in God, and appeasement of religious extremists of all faiths by moderates, has been and continues to be the greatest threat to world peace and a sustained assault on reason.

An Atheist Manifesto

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: Most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

[Vexatious Ape]

1. Ah--freaking--Men

I read this guys book last year and it blew me away--despite the fact that with me, he was preaching to the choir. He gave me a lot to use when arguing with my zealot co-workers. Dog bless you Sam Harris.

[Yollam]

3. It's a great piece.

He's actually a lot more strident than I am.

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.

Personally, I don't need evidence of God's existence. In fact, I'd rather our religious friends keep that evidence, all the ceremonies, trappings, icons and and biases of their religions to themselves. That's all I've ever asked - keep your damn religion to yourself, and I will reciprocate by not pointing out all the logical reasons why I cannot believe in a deity or other magical system. Ever notice that religious people say that you've CHOSEN not to believe? I CAN NOT believe in it because it is unbelievable. Could you make yourself believe that there are unicorns living with Santa & the Easter Bunny at the north pole just because everybody else believed in it and insisted that you do too? I go through the Santa charade with my kids every year because at least that's fun. And we all do it with a winking sense that it is all make-believe. I would never tell my kids with a straight face that Santa is absolutely real, nor did my parents. But that didn't stop me from loving the myth.

But religion is different. Most of them are not fun, or happy. Their services run the gamut from boring to obvious mind-control exercises to terrifying, and most have all kinds of baggage ranging from repression and bigotry to all-out genocide. Sure, there are a few tolerant, progressive sects, and if they fill a void in someone's life, fantastic. But personally, I don't feel that void. There is not a "God-shaped hole in my heart." Sorry, I just wasn't raised that way.

Good fences make good neighbors, especially when it comes to religion.

[Vexatious Ape]

4. In the "good book" --Sam's book

He shows how religious moderates make things worse and end all discussion on the irrationality of religious belief by hollering and screaming whenever someone offends their religious sensibility's.
In other words--how can we show the fundamentalists how wrong they are when the moderates defend them at every turn.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. I don't think the person you

are describing "hollering and sreaming" could be considered a religious moderate.

Religious moderates are moderate in their beliefs and their behavior.

I do not defend fundamentalists (and I'm a moderate), except for their right to believe.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Could you explain

what you mean by "keep your..religion to yourself?" I want to see if I have been an offender.

[Yollam]

26. If you haven't knocked at my door soliciting the Watchtower...

...or come up offering unsolicited advice that I should pray about this or that or the other, I doubt that you are. But plenty of people do it all the time. At least they did where I grew up in Texas. Here in the San Francisco bay area, people pretty much keep their religions to themselves, except for the Scientology assholes giving out "stress tests" on Market Street.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

Okay

I'm safe. I do the occasional 'god bless you" after sneezes. Maybe I'll move to geshundheit, or however it is spelled!

No, you'll never see me passing out tracts. I just saw my very first street preacher last week. It was an African American fellow in front of Albertson's. He was wearing a sandwich sign, holding a Bible and shouting at the top of his lungs. I think he was mentally ill and I felt sorry for him.

I once heard from a DU member that where he/she lives there are so many street preachers you can't make your way down the sidewalk!

That is just crazy!

[Yollam]

31. I don't pay "god bless you" any mind...

...and I don't think that other atheists do either. It was just brought up to illustrate how much religion is saturated into our everyday lives to the point where we don';t even notice it, but that the slightest mention of DISbelief tends to provoke bristling responses, rude stares, etc.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. Hmmm...just read this a bit closer

"The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. "


I don't agree with that at all. I don't feel I am obligated to present evidence for anything to anybody. I can believe that the trees take wing and fly at night and that is my right. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. If you want to tell me, fine. But I don't have to reciprocate.

And I don't agree with this:

"But religion is different. Most of them are not fun, or happy."

I have been raised in a church (Episcopalian) that has brought me great joy and happiness, as well as a wonderful outlet for my creative abilities. It has been a framework, particularly, for my relationship with my dad and I have nothing but good thoughts about its role in my life. Maybe I'm just a happy idiot, but I don't identify with the above sentiment at all.

Just my two cents..

[Yollam]

41. Well, that's why I used the word "most" rather than all.

There are progressive, positive denominations and sects out there, and I wish our fundamentalist friends would seek them out, rather than clinging to churches that promote greed, the superiority of its own members over outsiders, and hatred of those that don't follow their beliefs.

If there were a lot more Episcopal, Quaker, Unitarian, etc. churches and a lot fewer Southern Baptist and other Evangelical churches around, our country would definitely be much better off. But sadly, hate, greed and simplistic, self-serving quasi-spirituality still sells...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. Yeah, I really don't understand

the appeal of the big megachurches. It seems to pull a lot of folks in who believe they have a lot to be forgiven for, or something. Or I don't know, maybe that is stereotypical of me to say.

[Lars39]

64. One thing I've noticed about the mega churches...

there's lots of activities without commitment.
You can disappear into the woodwork without ever having
to contribute anything more than a check once in a while,
yet still say you go to church.
Can't do that as easily in a small church.

[smirkymonkey]

2. Kicked and recommended.

A voice of sanity in a sea of religious fundamentalist madness.

He illustrates the absurdity of organized religion and it's more zealous adherents quite nicely.

[corkhead]

6. the opiate of misery

who would put up with subjugation if they weren't assured of a better "afterlife"?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

30. I attend church

and am not subjugated in the least. Ever. But I know that is some people's experiences.

I give very little thought to the afterlife. My beliefs are more about the here and now and sensing a presence, that I am not alone.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Raise my consciousness on this issue

why do atheists feel obliged to share their personal beliefs? Are they bombarded at work, for example? Or what is life like for an atheist. Do people demand to know?

Sounds like I'm being pissy...I am absolutely not. I want to know what it is like.

[YankeyMCC]

9. A suggestion

and I don't mean this to sound flippant or disrespectful.

Try telling people you're atheist and see what it is like. It isn't hard, you don't have to make a special effort for it, just next time you're in a conversation and someone says "thank god" or "god bless you" make some casual remark like "doesn't work on me." when they say "god bless you." Then explain what you mean when the look at you funny. Or with easter and passover coming up next time someone asks you what you're doing for the holiday say "nothing".

And then observe how differently you're treated.

It's really the only way to get full answers to your questions.

BTW: I don't feel obligated to share my personal beliefs. But I feel I should be Free to share when it's appropriate just as free as a Theist.

[kineneb]

22. try explaining Buddhism

is just about as easy, since in essence, Buddhism (esp. Zen) is atheistic. I just look at folks and try to explain I have no need for the belief in a deity or an afterlife (belief in reincarnation is rather optional with Zen folks). And I don't celebrate Christian holidays, except for winter solstice, in honor of my Germanic ancestors.

Being in the moment is far more important. It is what you do, not believe.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. I think that is a great suggestion

and one I probably can't pull off because I rarely see folks I don't know at least in a passing way.

I know I am guilty of mindless "God bless you's" upon hearing a sneeze, but to me that is more an idiom than an expression of faith. Now, I wouldn't ever tell someone I was going to pray for them unless I had some level of understanding that they believed in God.

I have three colleagues I have worked with for over 20 years, and while I know two were raised Catholics and one Jewish, I know from discussions that they do not attend church/temple anymore and do not have any desire to, I really have no idea whether or not they are agnostics or atheists. It just seems to be WAY too personal a topic to discuss..kind of like your sex life.

And I am sure I have asked "what are you doing for the holiday" but I never mean "what services are you attending" or anything like that. I mean "how are you spending our time off?" Again, meaning are you going out of town, visiting family, whatever.

I have really been trying to think. I don't think I have ever told anyone (outside of this forum) my personal beliefs. Most folks I know will hear me refer to my church, or an activiity or a person I know through church. But I have never shared whether, for example, I believe in the virgin birth, yada, yada.

Maybe the very word, "atheist" is a bad idea. Since it describes a non-belief. I do think, however, that if you give a response to an automatic "God bless you" that you are opening yourself up to the conversation. Putting myself in an atheist's shoes (I know, impossible..but I'm imagining) I can visualize the following conversation:

Person: Would you like to come to Sunday services with me next week?
Me: No, thank you. Thanks for inviting me, but I don't go to church.
Person: What? Don't you believe in God?
Me: Excuse me? What did you ask me?
Person: Don't you believe in God?
Me: I thought that was what you asked, but I just couldn't believe you would ask something so incredibly personal.

That would probably end the conversation right there. One thing we do still have in this country, unlike some others, is the right to NOT believe and the right to keep that non-belief private OR make it public. Sadly, there are some countries where that will get you the death penalty. And that is very, very scary.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts candidly.

[YankeyMCC]

40. BTW

I didn't mean to imply I find any of those things saying "god bless you" etc...were necesarily offensive to me as an atheist. Just giving some suggestions for how to introduce your cover as an atheist. And perhaps demonstrate the pervasive assumption of belief.

I too take "god bless you" as an idiom an typically say nothing more than "thanks" in response.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. I understand

what you mean. I recently had a teacher conference with a woman wearing a head covering and sayin "Allah akbar" to many things, and to me it is just an expression of who she is. Different strokes. How boring we would all be if we believed the same things.

[Orrex]

97. I agree, though it can be uncomfortable

Not in everyday conversation, but for atypical events, like a death or a birth.

When my son was born, my coworkers (very nicely) signed and gave me a lovely card. We're a fairly close and small group, and pretty much everyone knows my views re: religion, yet about half of them signed "God bless your family" or "You are truly blessed" or something along those lines. If I were signing a card for a person of faith, I wouldn't write "this birth occurred with no intervention by mythological entities" because that would be wildly disrespectful of that person's faith. Yet an atheist, in my every experience, is afforded no such consideration.

Additionally, every single time I have "come out" as an atheist to a person of faith, that person has always always given a bored and patronizing "Really? I'm sorry to hear that" sort of response, as though I'm an unenlightened (or perhaps mentally deficient) rube.

[trotsky]

95. But your hypothetical conversation doesn't get to end there.

First off, why should atheists have to simply take the 5th amendment? Why is that an option? Sounds like you're advocating a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and we know how fair that is.

Secondly, the other person will now go off and tell all their friends, "I don't think so-and-so believes in god!" The rumor mill starts. Soon no one allows their kids to play with your kids. Neighbors avoid you, or worse, vandalize your house or car.

Faced with this kind of real ostracism, atheists have to keep their thoughts to themselves. When we get to read something like this piece, it's cathartic in a very real sense. You are going to see hoots and hollers of support because we simply don't get to do that in real life. We don't get to enjoy our non-belief, we have to hide it away - illustrated perfectly by your example.

[stepnw1f]

52. Great Point (nt)

[Coexist]

69. My teenage daughter had recently decided that she is an atheist

and I advised her to not share this with the other teens at her school. Isn't that terrible. If she had come to me and said she found Jesus, I never would have asked her to hide her beliefs. It came as a surprise to me, how worried I became for her safety.

Its a shame.

We are a secular family, where all religions are discussed as they are asked about. I have never expressed anything other than agnostic feelings about religion to my children, but they know they are free to find their own way. My only request is that, whatever religion they choose - no one is allowed to try to push it on anyone else over Thanksgiving dinner.

[Goblinmonger]

92. I hope she can find someone at school to talk to

I do not discuss my religion at school (I am a teacher). I have one student on the speech team I coach with whom I spend a lot of time (she made it to nationals last year as a sophmore). It became clear from knowing her parents, her brother, and now her that she is an atheist. She feels free to talk to me about things and brought it up on her own volition. We now have some discussions at lunch or after school. She seems to appreciate having someone to talk to that won't judge her harshly.

[Yollam]

11. Unlike religious folks, they actually seldom do.

Progressive boards like this are one of the few places where atheists can express their viewpoints (it's not about "belief" - that's religion again) I atheists around you are constantly telling you about their atheism, you must live in an unusual part of Tallahassee...


I hardly ever discuss my atheism with anyone off the internet. Religious people are so freaked out by anything that might cast the slightest doubt on their whole belief system. Far be it from me to upset their little apple carts.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. I agree

I have found that writing online has really helped me frame my own beliefs, and also to understand the world view of others.

[malachibk]

82. I am a proud atheist and will discuss it with whomever, wherever if

the subject comes up. Granted I live in NYC and work in a very progressive field, but if people can wear crosses, read the Bible on the train, handout "Watchtower" pamphlets on the corner, say "Bless you" when I sneeze, preach on the subway, etc, I feel it's my duty to stand up for what I (don't) believe in.

Let believers be freaked out. I'm freaked out by them on a daily basis. Literally. I never try to convince or disprove, I just state my belief that a life lived morally without "God" is even more meaningful because I chose to for the benefit of my family, neighbors and compatriots. If the only reason people comport themselves well is because they fear their "Lord's" wrath, that, to me, is not a life lived.

I'm sure I've tipped a few apple carts, but hey, believers shouldn't be carting the forbidden fruit anyhow.

**As a side note, my DREAM is to one day have enough cojones to stand up and read Darwin when somebody starts preaching to me at 8AM on the 2/3 train.**

[GinaMaria]

83. Your side note

cracked me up. I would be lucky to read the side of a coffee cup at that hour. Darwin, damn that's beautiful.

[Yollam]

84. I'm not saying that you're not entitled to...

...just that most of us don't. Personally, it's just not worth it. People clingto their beliefs like a baby to a doll, and wrap themselves in it like a bulletproof blanket. It makes no difference to me whether or not others believe. The only time it concerns me is when they try to force their beliefs on others who aren't interested.

[malachibk]

85. I hear what you're saying and agree, up to a point

Every day 'their' beliefs are forced on us in tiny, subtle ways if not more overtly. I don't profess to be "right" or "better" than believers, but faith is so taken for granted that I feel compelled to raise some awareness that there are good, moral, intelligent people who don't rely on "God" for guidance.

But again, I live in NYC. I'm sure it'd be different if I lived in KY.

[mainer]

13. I don't feel the need in the least to share my atheist beliefs

But everywhere I go, I hear: "God bless you," or "It's in God's hands," or "The good lord watches over us," or "Thank the lord."

So I don't feel the need to share my atheist beliefs, but religious people seem to feel the need to push THEIR beliefs on me all the time.

[klook]

44. "Bill Gets Hep To God!"

This is the title of a hilarious piece by the late science fiction writer John Sladek, appearing in a collection of his work called Maps. It's the text of an imaginary tract similar in tone to some of the cheesy Christian propaganda pamphlets you may have found on a bus from time to time. A young guy explains to his friend why believing in God is BS. Very funny.

[SmokingJacket]

15. One of my best friends is Catholic, I am agnostic/atheist...

Early in our friendship she admitted that one of the things that drew her to me was her sense that I had a really strong moral/ethical core. But she didn't understand where I'd get something like that, if I was raised without religion.

We had a really nice talk. Both of us had ended up shedding some assumptions: her assumption that all morality had to come from a belief in God, and my assumption that religious people just happen to overlook the "problem of evil." (She didn't convince me that God and the Holocaust could exist in the same universe, but I realize now that she has in fact thought about that a lot, and come to some conclusions about it.)

I think these discussions are useful.

[noamnety]

68. Or try this

Every Monday through Friday morning for 13 years, excepting summers and holidays, get together with your fellow coworkers, and as a large group recite (at your supervisor's command) a verse that proclaims you do not believe in God.

Everytime you get together with extended family for a meal, begin the meal by bowing your head, holding their hands, and mumbling a poem about how you don't believe in God.

When you accept your first full time job, in front of your new supervisor, raise your hand and recite a vow that you do not believe in God.

During your first few months at work, either go to an hour and a half long ceremony denying the existence of God, or scrub toilets. Your choice!

Everytime someone gets promoted at work, or there is a formal ceremony, spend the first 5 minutes listening to someone talk about how you are all gathered here to deny the existence of God. I know that doesn't seem relevant to a promotion ceremony, but trust me, it is.

When you, and then your children, have your most important events in life - graduation, marriage, funerals of those you loved, arrange to have them all begin with a statement about how you don't believe in God.

[FatDave]

70. I'll take a crack at that one

I don't think atheists feel obliged at all to share their personal beliefs (though technically speaking, atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of one). Certain people of certain religions, however, feel extremely obliged to share their beliefs with me, and when they do I will not lie about mine, nor will I back down should they choose to argue with me. Not that it does any good. Any argument between a believer and a non-beliver always boils down to the same point. The believer eventually says, "well you've just got to have faith" which of course amounts to "the Bible is true because it says it's true". You can't really get beyond that, at least not with a fundie (who incidentally are the ones you're likeliest to be arguing with because they're the ones who think they're doing God's work by trying to convert the big bad atheist).

Around here I will sometimes bring up my beliefs unprovoked, but that's because I know the people on these boards are tolerant. And when I bring it up here, the context is usually when somebody has declared one specific religion obvious hogwash. Then I take it upon myself to point out that they're all hogwash.

[sybylla]

8. Very nice - thanks for sharing

I'm always looking for strong books on atheism and I like this guy's in-you-face, unapologetic attitude. I'm putting it on my Amazon wish list as we speak.

[genie_weenie]

10. This will never work

because the starting points are different. It seems Mr. Sam Harris is asking for what can not be presented, evidence of God.

Christan Theologians have known since before Aquinas, that evidence of God, is not forth coming in the World.
Therefore, with the end of the European Dark Ages, they have been obfuscating the matter.

Now-a-days it basically comes down to a faith, which is blind and must be otherwise you open up God to, too much dissection via philosophical methods. This of course has been the whole underlying thread of Western Philosophy since Aquinas.

[Yollam]

18. Yeah, that's the one place where he lost me.

I never ask theists for proof of God. It's like asking for proof of the Flintstones or proof of Godzilla. It's a fictional construct, and the fact that most of humanity seems to have a psychological need to believe in it in one form or another does not make it something that needs to be proven (or disproven for that matter)

Besides, when you ask for proof, the theists always come up with some trite but factual stories of people who overcame cancer or blindness through prayer, or chanting or transcendental meditation, or whatever. And that is wonderful proof - of the power of the mind to affect the body's well-being. It cannot be taken as proof of one deity or another, since almost every religious sect on the earth has many, many instances of these "miracles" that they will be glad to point out to you.

And really, I don't need proof. If there actually is a deity, I tend to believe that it would understand my ignoring all the competing theologies, and instead living my life on earth to its fullest. If the deity is an insecure tantrum-throwing child, like the Abrahamic God, all-powerful and all-knowing, but needing constant sycophantic adulation from those he created, then why would I want anything to do with such a pathetic creature? I would honestly rather go to hell than spend eternity in servitude to such a ridiculous character.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. The God you describe

is a finite being and not what I personally envision. One concept I have a lot of trouble with is "praise." If God is perfect, he/she/it doesn't require praise. Now maybe it fufills some basic need in humans or something, but I don't spend a lot of time in praise. Just seems silly to me.

[Yollam]

54. You sound like a wise cookie, especially being in the deep south...

...where it is ALL ABOUT "praise".

[genie_weenie]

81. Well, that's the whole problem, Theology

has striven (strove?) to redefine God over the years to make him immune to Scientific Critique. And that is why an the Atheist Argument of show me proof of God will not work on a true believing Christian (or insert religion).

Carl Sagan summed it up very succinctly in The Demon Haunted World. To quote:

"In theological discussion with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central tenet of their faith were disproved by science. When I put I put this question to the current, Fourteenth, Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leader do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change.
Even, I asked, if it's a really central tenet, like (I searched for an example) reincarnation?
Even then, he answered.
However - he added with a twinkle- it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation." - ibid. 278

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. Yes

not exactly a light topic, huh?

I guess we've been batting it back and forth since we jumped out of the trees.

[Beelzebud]

12. Atheism is a religion,

like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

:)

[htuttle]

14. One of my hobbies lately is "not riding my bicycle"

I find it less tedious than my previous hobby of "not playing basketball".

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Yes, that is why I spend so much time on my knees, not praying to my non-

god. And the things I don't pray for, with ever-growing fervor and conviction: my team winning the football game, buying the winning lotto ticket, finding a parking spot downtown on a Friday night, to make a 40 ft putt, and more.

And you know what, my non-prayers are a HELL of a lot more successful that those who actually prey for rain, sun, riches, or health.

But, since i do collect stamps, I wonder if where I stand (or not kneel) in your psalm book, Beelzebud, :)

[stepnw1f]

55. it's a religion?

[Beelzebud]

60. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Read the posts, not just the subject lines.

[stepnw1f]

61. I Read the Post

and not just the subject line.

[InsultComicDog]

89. Baldness is a hair color

[Gregorian]

16. It's as though the bible never was written.

And everything in it is just a story. No facts.

I didn't start this. You posted. But as long as you are going to publicly post your beliefs on a political forum where I also post, I feel it is acceptable to respond.

I guess the holocaust didn't happen either since I wasn't there, and did see it with my own eyes.

It constantly amazes me that DUers, of all people, would be so opposed to being open minded about something so well documented as what happened in the bible. It's a book of history. A collection of authors. Not even one person. And much of it is irrefutable, if one takes the time to study it. It would all have to be nonfiction for all of it to be just a story. All of it. We don't know how this world works. We don't know. And to second guess, is just a guessing game. Whether it's a kid getting raped, or the fact that we all age and die. It's not fair, and we don't know why. That is a separate issue from whether there is a god or not.

[Beelzebud]

17. "Much of it is irrefutable" Such as?

The burning bush?
The parting of the red sea?
The virgin birth?
The resurrection?

What exactly is irrefutable?

Biblical scholars can't even agree on which mountain the 10 commandments supposedly came from...

[Arugula Latte]

35. People turning into salt? C'mon, what's not to believe?

How can you deny such an irrefutable story? Why don't you base your life on a story about a dude made out of clay and his woman, made out of a rib? Who are you gonna believe, the Bible or your own brain and logic, rationality, and hard, cold facts? ;)

[sarcasmo]

23. The Bible is a Fable, which many are brain washed into following.

[Yollam]

24. The Christian/Jewish/Muslim bible is *NOT* a book of history

There are some historical events in it, and it was written chronologically, but that's where the resemblance to a history book ends. It is chock full of stories that many priests will gladly admit are nothing more than parable and metaphor, meant to impart a lesson, not to be taken as factual events.

Scholars are not even certain whether Jesus the man actually existed, or was an amalgam of other teacher figures derived from other religious groups.

You are free to believe in the Bible verbatim as fact, but scholars do not regard it as such.

We don't know how this world works. We don't know. And to second guess, is just a guessing game. Whether it's a kid getting raped, or the fact that we all age and die. It's not fair, and we don't know why. That is a separate issue from whether there is a god or not.


Huh? We have a pretty good idea of how the world works. The earth rotates and revolves around the sun due to centrifugal force. When a kid is raped, it's because somebody, either due to a psychopathic lack of empathy or other psychological syndrome decided to commit a rape. We age and die because that is how all living things work. And we don't really die, because we reproduce. Only our broken bodies and egos that have become stale and brittle die. There are indeed mysteries in the world, and the complexity and grandeur of the universe may lead one to believe that a divine intelligence may have created it all. If you want to find God, you can find it anywhere and everywhere. Nothing wrong with that. But many of don't. We're not looking, we're not missing anything. We're just fine without, thank you.

[megatherium]

49. Not a book of history,

but it stretches it too far to argue we don't even know if Jesus existed. All mainstream (secular) scholarship is in agreement that Jesus was a first-century rabbi in Roman Palestine, who taught various things, was believed by his followers to perform miracles, and who was killed (apparently for the Roman crime of insurrection). There is reason to beleive that belief in the resurrection was not a later mythological overlay but instead an early belief. Clear mention of Jesus in non-Christian writings date to the early second century but refer to events in the 60s (Nero's scapegoating of Christians after the fire in Rome).

The notion that the Bible is a revealed work of truth, that it is highly reliable, is of course long since been discarded by mainstream scholars. The New Testament in particular is overlaid with mythology (the virgin birth stories, etc). Many modern Christians fully understand this. Many atheists seem to assume that Christian faith is a matter of believing doctrines such as Biblical inerrancy, and they (naturally) react with anger to the expectation that they should believe in such doctrines. But Sam Harris is over the line when he suggests that all Christian faith is equally offensive to reason. I don't know Harris's background -- but many atheists seem to come from fundamentalist backgrounds and seem to be unable to distinguish between fundamentalist expressions of religion and modern, liberal expressions of religion.

[Yollam]

51. Yes, that's a fair point.

In fact, I have spoken to Catholic priests who said much the same as you did - that much of the Bible is just so much mythology. Hence the lack of fervor over Revelations' supposed end-times prophecies among Catholics, I suppose.

I don't think all Christians are fundamentalists, but that does seem to be the mainstream in much of the US, particularly the South.

I personally am not from a fundie background. To the contrary, I came from a highly secular home, never had any religion, and was surprised at the shocked reaction I got when I told a classmate in 7th grade that I didn't believe in Jesus or God or anything else. Several other kids jumped in, all telling me how horrible it was to not believe in Jesus, etc.

But I've only done cursory explorations of the various religions, hence my relative ignorance of a lot of their tenets. Sorry for that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

56. I disagree

that fundamentalism is mainstream in the south. I don't think it is mainstream anywhere. It was gaining strength for a while; I don't know if it still is.

No, not mainstream. I wonder where we could get figures on that?

About your 7th grade experience...when I was in first grade I informed a young Jewish friend that she killed Jesus. Now there is NO way I heard that at church or from my parents. I have no idea where I heard it because in those days I doubt there were 100 fundamentalists in central Jersey!

[Warren Stupidity]

36. "I guess the holocaust didn't happen either"

"I guess the holocaust didn't happen either since I wasn't there, and did see it with my own eyes."

Parts of the old testament bible are a historical record of the history of the Jewish people told through the filter of their priests. Other parts of that book are clearly just myths and fables. It is massively dishonest for you to equate disbelief in biblican fables such as genesis with holocaust denial.

[FatDave]

72. Not to mention that there are mountains of evidence...

...to support the holocaust. There are piles of the Nazi's own paperwork describing it. There are photographs taken by the Nazi's themselves. There is film footage of the concentration camps. There are survivors with numbers tattooed on their arms. One visit to the holocaust museum will provide all the evidence anyone should need.

And the evidence of religion? Usually a centuries-old book by unknown authors.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Well I was giving the bible the benefit of technology available

at the time. It is an historical document, and parts of it can be used as such. Even myths and fables can be based on some sort of reality, e.g. Troy. But I agree putting holocaust denial on the same plane as scepticism over the historical validity of, for example, God and Satan wagering over the faith of Job is insulting and stupid. A good story Job, probably avoided by most religious types due to its difficult message, but hardly of historical interest.

Now Jonah and the Whale, that happened.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. which bible? Apparently, it makes a difference.

From something I collected:

On The English version of the bible's Old Testament .
The Oxford scholar Aelfric created summaries of his interpretations at around 1000 CE.
The Anglo-Normans had most of the book translated by 1361. The next English translation, known as Wycliffe version, was intended for general public. This otherwise popular step caused god’s robed, self-proclaimed, literary agents to get quite irate. How dare the public read and discuss what should be left only to the ecclesiastical authority? The priests went bonkers, petrified by what a more educated public might do. How dare the common man own his own bible?
To deal with this potential attack on the power of the exalted preacher class, in 1408, Archbishop Arundel tried to bar the use of the English bible within England. Despite a persistent and deep Church hostility and repeated threats of prison, death, or worse, excommunication, the English continued being English. This version remained a hit with the masses, at least those few who had learned how to read.
A hundred years later, Tyndale’s Old Testament was so successful that it was considered to have set the benchmark all the way to modern times. In 1535, Coverdale came up with his own very popular, but very faulty version. Later editions contained even greater numbers of errors, until 1539, when he published either his 3d or 4th correction alongside Jerome’s Vulgate. (No one knows on what basis he selected his choice of the Vulgate version from the thousands of Vulgates that existed even that time.)
King Henry VIII’s own Great Bible also underwent a number of changes each time it was reprinted. (Much like the king, it was mostly famous for its corpulent size, not its accuracy. Also like the fat king, its content led to the deaths of innocent women.)
In the early 1600s, a group of Christian leaders told King James that all previous books were “corrupted.” He hired scores of scholars to work in Cambridge and Oxford and paid them to come up with a new and improved version. In 1611, they published the first King James version. Unfortunately, many of the more accurate Greek works were totally unknown to these scholars. Their ability to translate Aramaic or ancient Hebrew was pretty pathetic. Not one Hebrew or Aramaic scholar existed in Cambridge or Oxford at the time.

In 1870, scholars started a major revision on King James I. Eleven years later, they had made over 30,000 corrections to the New Testament alone. The Old Testament underwent even more significant changes. This revision was published in the US, after undergoing even more serious revisions to “Americanize” the language.
Because the Roman Catholic Church refused to soil its pristine, jewel encrusted, greedy fingers on any of the James’ “filthy” efforts, in 1907, even they admitted that their old translations were fatally flawed. They assigned their own rewriting tasks to their Benedictine cult. By 1969, only the Prophets was still unfinished. Even after 62 years of rewriting, there were still problems and major issues.
Some of these problems are potentially explosive and are not limited to any particular Christian cult. Recent gains in translation, computer analysis and newly found materials continue to change scholars’ views and understanding. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to create major waves inside most Christian cults. In some cases, the very foundations of their cults are at risk.
It should be clear by now, to even the densest, closed-minded, willfully ignorant, religious, Christian bigot, that any resemblance that today’s Americanized Old Testament text has to the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts is purely accidental. And it should also be clear why all human activities are viewed with contempt, especially when those activities may conflict with their very existence. When one considers just how much political wrangling went into many of the translations, today’s most popular texts have very little to do with the original Old Testament.

(SNIP)

New Testament

The New Testament also had a bloody, deadly and violent history. For the first 10 decades, the Christian cultists were true to their hatred of education and learning. They did not trust putting any words into paper. Part of the reason was that literacy was not one of their strengths. Another reason was that by being able to repeat only the words as they chose, in the order that they chose, Christians could adapt and adopt the words at will. Not wanting to “cheapen” god’s words with pen and ink, they relied on the inaccurate and mistake filled method called Oral Tradition.
If you have ever played the party game “telephone”, you can only imagine how the words got changed and mangled over time.
The pseudo-historian Papias (d. 130 CE) was one of the earliest people to gather the words of actual witnesses, such as John the Evangelist, and put pen to paper. One of the reasons was he was one of the very few who learned how to read and write. He included some of his favorite, new and improved apocalyptical theories that called for a reign of peace a thousand years long after which the world as we knew it would end.
We must have missed that part somehow, especially a thousand years of global peace. Some of his many critics suggest that he might have authored them as part of his own fraud.
Around 200 years later, Eusebius made a point of showing that Papias got it mostly wrong. (He also called him “a man of exceedingly small intelligence”, a serious insult, even in those days.)
By then, christians were well along with their “creative” gospel writing efforts. Because their god was considered to be a living being, many authors thought that they could change gospel language or add to it as they saw fit. Some gospels’ authors were against war, others were against priests and bishops, and still others were decidedly against all organized religious organizations.
The christians who were in power at that time faced a serious problem. The drafters of all these new and improved gospels were gathering more attention and support than the ruling class. These competitors had to be stopped at all costs, before the “in” cults lost all that access to money and power. Besides the newly created, more popular cults had ideas which did not sit well with them.
Many competing cults had started up over the first few centuries, each of them claiming that their words and ideas were more powerful than others’.
The Gnostics claimed that their members receive “revelation” from above, based mainly on intuition. Their growing popularity was the biggest reason that the orthodox “in” christians, refocused their attention on the apostles’ version of the gospels. This also led directly to the “canonization” (think of editing with a heavy hand) of the New Testament.
The Montanic cult started up in the second century. Their popular message about spirituality created yet another serious problem for the early Christians. They responded with a redoubled effort to clean up their instruction manual, with the previously mentioned “canonization”. They also murdered anyone promoting a competing cult.
At one time more than eighty competing Gospels existed. In many of them, Jesus didn’t even exist. The four gospels that first mention Jesus’ existence weren’t written, edited or concocted until around the 4th century. Even in those, they contained horrible historical errors. Despite what their “inerrant” book says, Nazareth did not even exist in Palestine at the alleged time of Jesus’ life.
Fraud and political maneuvering were rampant. Cooking these books was a way of life. Think about Enron or Halliburton’s Iraqi accounting and billing techniques and you will get the general flavor. Except these stakes were much larger. There was an entire religious movement to mold and control. And with that movement under your control, endless riches could be gained.
The first time that this canonization effort was officially attempted was by the famous anti-Semite Marcion. He simply deleted any topics or phrases that sounded “too Jewish” or too Old Testament. Partly because of his work, and other factors, the christians decided on four gospels as authoritative (although their actual contents were subject to change for many centuries to come).
Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria was the first of many individuals who tried to make inter-cult peace between east and west christian leaders. He was also the first to decide that 27 books of the New Testament were “canonical”. (translation: they were good enough for him to include in his version of the bible.)
Even this approach ran into problems as newer (and much older) documents turned up in different parts off the Middle East. Although forgeries were common, many apparently authentic documents simply disagreed with the accepted Christian dogma of the day.
The Syriac Church finally accepted those 27 books as accurate, in spirit, in the 7th century. But since everyone but the Syriacs themselves ignored their decision, we’ve said enough about them.
During the next few centuries, many versions of the Vulgate were generally the most popular. During this time, many popular, but not favored gospel texts were searched out and destroyed as heretical.
Let’s jump to the Council of Trent (1545–63, 1590), where the canonization of the entire bible was to be negotiated and ultimately decided. Lest you have this mental image of beautifully robed bishops and cardinals involved in peaceful, scholarly, and intelligent discussion, you should know that it was anything but that.
Roving gangs, supporting one cult, one gospel or a particular chapter or verse against everyone else’s, combed the city of Trent to search out and physically attack competing Christian gangs. Bloodshed, murder, bribery, riots and political scheming ruled the day. Being on the losing side meant that you would lose status, income, power, perhaps even your life. These street skirmishes continued almost unabated for more than 17 years, with very few breaks.
Many of these canonical battles were fought by the sword, and not with Prayer, Faith or scholarly contemplation. Given even those bishops’ collective hatred for all things scientific, intellectual or historical, one must wonder much of the final version came to exist because its supporters had larger, better armed, and more successful gangs, instead of scholarly support. This was still a full century before christians persecuted and prosecuted Galileo simply because he was right and they were wrong. The christian hatred of logic, rational thought and creativity had its roots in much earlier times, from the very beginning.
The idea that “Might makes right” did not start with Adolph Hitler, but with christianity. During the Crusades, that approach was tried repeatedly, although rarely with any measure of success. But the Rear Echelon Mystic Fundies who organized the Crusades did quite well.
By the time that the battles of Trent were begun, given many forgeries, letters, wars and new cults, there were over 100,000 different variations of different gospel texts (and their variations) available to the warring parties. That, and the constant political and physical battles, explained why the Council of Trent took so long to come up with their final findings.
The problems that true christian believers will face in the near future are varied and disturbing, that is, if they permit themselves to think rationally. As translations rely on more advanced computing power and rely on data comparisons, the accuracy of the translations will continue to improve. It will be subject to fewer personal biases and anecdotal portrayals.

* * *

Don't you think that any story, if poorly or inaccurately translated, is no better than make-believe? The history of the bible, the real history, I mean, is one of errors and corrections, editing and battles over text. Gospels were concocted over the centuries, then changed, edited, deleted and altered for political reasons. Just which part are your refering to when you say that everything is well-documented? Honestly, I'd like to know. And which version of the translation. And which original text. And which original gospel.

I don't understand how some people can just set aside fact and history, and claim that everything in the "bible" is well-documented. Hell, in the 1500s, they fought a seventeen year war deciding what words and gospels would be included - FOR POLITICAL REASONS, not religious. Most, if not all of it HAS BEEN refuted. Only those who stick their head in the sand on purpose do their best to ignore fact and instead trust in fairy tales. I am not attacking your beliefs, but I suggest that you are slightly in error.

The 1973 Chicago ruling on the bible's inerrancy is a great place to start - if you dare. From there, it is an easy step to see that the bible truly is a work of inaccurate fiction. Some great stories, true, but still not based in reality or history any more than the Muslims' koran, or the Mormans' writings about lost tribes of Israel roaming the US great plains and the Andes mountains.

[stepnw1f]

59. It Only References History

Other than that, it is a book of parables. Nothing in the Bible can be taken literally.

[Speck Tater]

19. There are really only two choices...

You can be agnostic, or you can be dogmatic.

It doesn't really matter if you dogmatically believe in the existence of God or if you dogmatically believe in the non-existence of god. Neither position is rational or defensible, and both are based on blind faith. The existence of God cannot be proven and the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Therefore the only rational stance is that of the agnostic. All other stances are based only upon ridiculous things believed in without evidence. The sole reason for believing either is so that one may wear the security blanket of imagined certainty. It's takes real guts to live with uncertainty, but intellectual honesty demands it. And that fear is why both "True Believers" and Atheists are so vehement in professing their respective faiths. To feel less than certain brings such acute discomfort that they cannot allow doubt to enter their minds.

How sad to be so locked into an irrational belief system simply because one does not have the courage to face uncertainty. That's why I feel sorry for both theists and atheists. They are both blinded by their dogma and have little likelyhood of ever discovering what is really true.

[kineneb]

27. actually Buddhism posits a third way

where one learns to hold simutianiously belief and non-belief in mind while not following either. Or: "there is both is-ness and not-is-ness". Thus belief one way or the other is seen as detour, while one should be focusing on the Now. Simply put, I don't worry about the existance or non-existance of a deity or deities; they will or will not take care of themselves. Not my concern. My concern is with making the world a better place for all beings, and doing no harm (and being aware if I do such).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

53. That seems like a very wise approach

and compared to Buddhists, we Christians and Muslims are very "young."

[Yollam]

29. I'm an atheist. There is no "atheist" dogma.

I suppose there may be atheists who are certain that there is no "higher power", but I doubt there are many. That can no more be proven than the existence of God can.

I choose the word atheist over agnostic, because agnostic implies that I am a doubter, that I can somehow be brought over into the camp of one religion or the other, if I see enough evidence, or miracles or whatever. That's not the case. I neither want nor need religion in my life, period. That is not the same as denying the existence of a higher power. I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a thing, when I have never seen a shred of evidence that it does or does not exist. But we wouldn't be talking about this had the virus of religion been planted in all our minds by others, who had it planted in them by countless others, going back to caveman times, when man struggled to understand why he was here, why fire burned bright, why the earth shook and sometimes the rain didn't come, why he and all he loved had to die.

I was born an atheist and will die an atheist. That's not dogma, it's just what I've always been.

[rexcat]

67. I am an atheist...

There is nothing in my life experiences that indicate there is a god, therefore I accept the null hypothesis until otherwise proved incorrect.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

50. "Both are based on blind faith"

I agree with that.

There is ONE TRUTH. Nobody knows. Period.

[FatDave]

75. Actually, no

With all due respect, I don't think you (and some others) are getting it.

I don't believe in a lot of things. In fact, the number of things I don't believe in approaches infinty. For example:

- I don't believe that the universe is conrolled by an invisible pink unicorn
- I don't believe that the earth rests on the back of a turtle
- I don't believe the universe was sneezed from the nose of the great green arkleseizure
- I don't believe the universe is a simulation running in a more advanced society's computer system
- I don't believe that the universe was created when a cosmic baseball player smacked it into existence on a 3-2 fastball.
- I don't believe the Jewish God created the universe in 6 days, created man and woman, tempted them via a talking snake <snip> and his Son made flesh died for my sins.

So, is my lack of belief in all these things "blind faith"?

Edit: tried to use square brackets on <snip>, didn't work.

[ulysses]

20. Sam Harris is going to destroy religion?

Good luck.

[info being]

25. Next time somebody calls me a non-believe

I'll suggest that he's a non-athiest.

[zippy890]

34. I read his book - and am big fan of Sam Harris

especially during these times of religious foaming at the mouth, it is great for him to write
on this subject so compellingly .

a note about the book 'End of Faith' - it gets scary with his chapters on militant islam, but he hold out hope that if we as one race decide to be reasonable we can avoid the worst case by working toward a world government.

big kickeroo for this post
:dem:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

62. I know this is OT

but a world government?

Whoa. That blows me away. We agree with very little in this country. I can't imagine we would ever agree on a world level unless aliens land, or we all take happy pills or something like that.

See, to me, world government is 1984 for real. I'd like to see us learn to respect our differences and govern ourselves, so that there is a place for everyone to live safely.

Anyway, my head just blew up so I guess I better bow out. I get too deep into these religious topics. So interesting to me.

[zippy890]

71. it may be the only way we can save ourselves

with global climate change, people are predicting worsening
natural disasters - did you see 60 minutes last night?

things will have to get very very bad, of course, before such
thinking - efforts toward world government - will come about,
and it won't be without a lot of , unpleasantness, but I think the
basic instinct to survive will make it a necessity.

may take a WWIII scenario, but I like to think more positive, but
if we as individuals think, and say to each other, that it is a good goal,

maybe, just maybe someday my great-great-..(?) grandchildren will live in a better,
religious-dogma free world , as members of one country, one race - the human race.

I can dream anyway

[TallahasseeGrannie]

78. I think maybe I'm too old to envision it

but my mind is open. If I am free to have my own beliefs and own thoughts, I'm there.

[Yollam]

39. What amazes me is not that people continue to be religious...

...in an age of science. What amazes me is that all people of all religions don't just go ahead and merge all the religions together into one, since they all have so many similar tenets and miracle stories - or at least they could worship under the umbrella of Unitarian Universalism.

And yet people continue to cling to the orthodoxies and dogmas of their own particular sects, more as a way of clinging to tribal identity than as an expression of true spiritual belief. At least that's how I see it.

[Lars39]

43. That's Moon's goal.

Generic megachurches. :scared:

[Yollam]

46. Well, he is our savior, after all.

:sarcasm:

Somehow, I doubt his rule that married couples should use "The Holy Handkerchief," which must be used to clean up the genitals after sex, but never washed, will ever catch on with the mainstream.

Likewise, I think most women's fairy-tale dream wedding doesn't really match up well with Moon's M.O. of pairing off 10,000 couples and marrying them all at once...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

57. that is disgusting

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. A Manifesto whose second sentence is

"soon he will rape, torture, and kill her" isn't a manifesto I would espouse or hold myself to. To me, it drips of hatred for men. Ridicule me for my faith. Go ahead. You can't shake it. Neither can human events or natural disasters. Such is the nature of faith.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

63. Good point

needs some tweaking, I'd say.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. That paragraph merely stated that bad deeds are

commonplace. This is not a doctrine you can choose to adhere to, it is a fact that you either deny or accept. It is also a fact that millions, perhaps billions of humans are convinced that their god is watching over them, protecting them from harm inflicted either by active agents such as serial killers, or acts of nature such as the Christmas Tsunami, when it is manifestly obvious that there is no such force in the world: shit happens and god is not going to save you from it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. Agreed that bad stuff happens

but I think maybe the choice of rape as a bad thing is a bit divisive. But it does happen, no doubt.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. "manifestly obvious that there is no such force" ??

Obvious to you maybe.

The "paragraph" is repeated here:

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?


Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that paragraph didn't mention the Christmas tsunami, nor did it mention "serial killers". What it did mention, however, was "an atrocity of this kind" i.e. a young girl who was about to be raped, tortured, and killed, as well as what her parents believe might be keeping her safe.

As for the millions, nay, billions you mentioned who didn't get killed by the Christmas Tsunami OR serial killers, I say congratulations. Your God kept you safe. Peace be upon you for believing in something higher than your selfish view of yourself and your place in the Universe.

Such is the nature of Faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. No I mentioned the Christmas Tsunami.

I never said otherwise. It is a rather ironic natural disaster. Sort of a Job-like test of faith for the true believers.

You would have to explain how the people of faith washed out to sea were somehow not looked after by the same god/gods who looked over those people of faith that weren't. By the evidence, faith had nothing to do with it. But if that is what gets you through the night, fine with me, just don't expect me to consider it rational to believe in an active diety.

[Cats Against Frist]

73. B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T!!!

:toast: :bounce: :headbang:

[happydreams]

74. K&R

It's true that you have to explain why you don't believe in God rather than the religious types explaining why they do.

[Yollam]

76. Is that what he meant?

Koresh, I'm so dense. All this time, I thought he seriously wanted them to prove it to him. But no, it's more about fairness, because we are always expected to explain our lack of belief.

[happydreams]

80. Great post. I think its about both. This was

the part that I picked up on and compared to my day to day experience with dogmatists:

It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines.

[FatDave]

77. As they say...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[radio4progressives]

87. I first heard him speak a few weeks ago on C-Span..

I was blown away, i could hear my thoughts coming out of this mans mouth.

http://www.samharris.org/

read the first 10 pages of End of Faith here:

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/book-excerpts/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-_b_8459.html

[radio4progressives]

88. so nice to see this topic posted here..

so sick to death of religious fundamentalism and christian superstition and mythology injected in discussions.

[QC]

90. Wrong forum.

Discussion topics relating to religion that have little or no relation to politics or current events must be posted in the Religion/Theology forum.

[sybylla]

93. kick for the r/t crowd

[oscarguy]

94. Religions are all institutionalized insanity in my opinion.

We seem to be going back wards as a species culturally speaking, and perhaps genetically as well. These religions are the cause of so much Human misery past and present A PERSON COULD EASILY MAKE AN ARGUMENT THEY ARE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE INFLUENCE ON MANKIND THERE IS. ...Oscar

[Crunchy Frog]

96. I find atheist prosylitizing

every bit as offensive as I find Christian prosylitizing.

I profoundly disagree with this person. Nobody owes an accounting of their own personal beliefs to anyone else, any more than they owe an accounting to others for their personal sexual preferences. It's nobody else's business unless they choose to make it somebody else's business by trying to shove their beliefs down other's throats.

He seems very upset over the fact that many people have irrational beliefs. I myself have never believed humans to be rational creatures in the first place, and am convinced that every single one of us (including the author of this piece) has at least some irrational beliefs.

I see the problem, not as people having beliefs which they can't rationally justify, but rather as people who are absolutely convinced that they know what everyone else should or should not believe.

The focus should be on separating personal beliefs from the realm of public policy, not on attempting to eliminate them (which is in itself an irrational fantasy).

[LiberalVoice]

98. I guess you missed his point.

HE MAKES IT A POINT to explain that if people have beliefs, they THEMSEVLES should have rational reasons for believing so.

"He seems very upset over the fact that many people have irrational beliefs. I myself have never believed humans to be rational creatures in the first place, and am convinced that every single one of us (including the author of this piece) has at least some irrational beliefs."

People SHOULD be upset when one holds themselves to irrational belief. And whether humans are a naturally rational being or not, we hold in all us the ability to be so.

And as for removing personal beliefs from public policy: How exactly are you supposed to do that? If your morals are based on religious dogma that says gay people are evil, how are you supposed to allow them the same rights as everyone else without feeling you are a betrayer of your own belief? Believing that society as a hole can make rational policies while holding to irrational(read imaginary) beliefs is in itself irrational.

[Crunchy Frog]

99. It's EXTREMELY irrational

to get upset over the fact that someone else holds an irrational belief.

I don't agree that people should have rational reasons for their beliefs. Or rather, if believing in something gives you a sense of meaning, or belonging, or a feeling of comfort, that is sufficient reason to have it, and gives it a sufficient rationale. It is rational for us to do the things that increase our comfort.

Removing personally held beliefs from public policy is done through maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, and maintaining a secular government. It may not be easy, but it's alot easier than any alternative that I can think of. How rational do you really think it is to think that you are going to persuade people to give up their personal beliefs? All observations of human behavior suggest that trying to do that will simply make people cling all the harder to their irrational beliefs. Push that policy and you simply create a gigantic backlash. This whole idea is pure fantasy and supremely irrational.

[LiberalVoice]

100. "I dont agree that people should have rational reasons for their beliefs..

...Or rather, if believing in something gives you a sense of meaning, or belonging, or a feeling of comfort, that is sufficient reason to have it, and gives it a sufficient rationale."

Well there you go.

On Edit: So in other words the woman who sawed off her babies arms so that "she could be with god" is perfectly ok. She figured she was doing her baby a favor so why not just send her to jesus on the express flight. :eyes:

What kind of argument can you have with someone who says your beliefs dont have to be rational?

[WhollyHeretic]

101. .

:yoiks:

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Thanks for setting up a nice straw man to knock down.

You saw something in my post that looked like it was justifying cutting off babies' arms, and YOU have issues with OTHER people's irrationality. :rofl:

For the record, no, I don't think that people have the right to act on any belief they may have, and I said no such thing in my post. I hope that you understand that there's a difference between holding a belief and acting on a belief. I hope that you also understand that not everyone who believes in God, or adhere's to some religion, is some frothing at the mouth extremist. That's an awefully broad and sweeping generalization of a group of people that includes a sizeable proportion of this board, a majority in the Democratic party, and the gentleman whose picture is in your signature line.

I only say that your beliefs don't have to be rational because there is no way that it is humanly possible for me to make you change them. How would you suggest that I solve that issue? Forcibly perform brain surgery on you? Whether you like it or not, people have absolute sovereignty over their own brains. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else has a right to dictate what is in somebody else's head.

[LiberalVoice]

106. You're still missing the point.

First off, I never said I dont have issues with other peoples irrational thinking. It makes me sick to think that so many people believe Jesus was actually born of a virgin, died for our sins, and expect him to be resurrected within their lifetime. Furthermore, what are beliefs but that which you use to judge your actions?

Secondly, what the on earth does this mean? "I only say that your beliefs don't have to be rational because there is no way that it is humanly possible for me to make you change them." First off, people change their beliefs all the time. Sometimes through television programs, a book ,a movie, music, art, and believe it or not, sometimes because of OTHER PEOPLE. :wow: My second question is even if you couldn't change someones beliefs, why on earth do their beliefs not have to be rational? What exactly is the excuse you give people to not think rationally?

[Crunchy Frog]

107. I'm sorry, but if you're making yourself sick over what's going on

in other people's heads, then that is very sad, and very, very irrational of you. People who obsess over what's in other people's heads are as bad as people who obsess over what goes on in other people's bedrooms.

And no, there is no way that I can make you change your beliefs. I can certainly attempt to persuade you, and have every right to do so, as long as I'm not infringing on your rights in the process. I somehow don't have the idea that I'm going to be very successful in my attempts though. ;)

People's beliefs do not have to be rational. Sorry, that's just the way the world works. In my experience, most people who believe strongly in their own rationality don't have alot of basis for that belief.

[LiberalVoice]

110. They dont have to be rational. But they should be.

How is it irrational to be upset at irrational thinking?

What someone chooses to do in their bedroom has nothing to do me. But when you have the majority of a population flexing their weight on their government because of their irrational thinking it does affect me. And if i want to be pissed off about it you better believe I will be.

[Crunchy Frog]

111. I'm pissed at people

who attempt to force their irrational beliefs on others, or who try to twist the government into an instrument for the promotion of those beliefs. If somebody is not bothering or harming anyone else with their irrational beliefs and are keeping them to themselves though, then I regard them as being no more my business than what they do in their bedrooms. You're free to be pissed at anything you like though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

118. My goodness

don't let others' beliefs make you sick. You believe what YOU want and don't worry about the rest. If they intrude upon your rights, then our system has the mechanisms for you to work through in order to stop that from happening.

But never internalize someone else's mind. Not good for you!

[beam me up scottie]

102. How does one proselytize no beliefs?

Stop believing now or.............

you'll bur... no, that's not it.



I got nothing.

[Crunchy Frog]

104. It appears to be what the article quoted in the OP is advocating.

"The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87% of the population) who claim to never doubt the existence of God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day."

You prosyletize no beliefs by going around telling other people that their beliefs are wrong, or that they shouldnt have them, or that they owe you some sort of rational justification for having them.

As soon as you start to think that you have the right to dictate what another person should or should not believe, you begin to step into the realm of proselyzation. Believe or don't believe whatever you want, but when you think that somebody else is somehow obliged to justify their own private, personal beliefs to you, you are entering the realm of prosyletization.

I don't believe that the vast majority of atheists actually care what other people believe in as long as they're not trying to force those beliefs on others, or act on them in ways that hurt others. My guess is that most atheists want what most other people want, to be left alone and not have other people preaching at them about what they should or shouldn't believe. To the extent that they attempt to push off their views on others, they are no better than religious believers who do the same thing.

[beam me up scottie]

105. I think you should consult a dictionary.

It might knock that strawman out of your hands before he gets any bigger.

[Crunchy Frog]

108. OK, let me rephrase my original post.

Attempting to tell other people what they should or should not believe is as obnoxious in atheists as it is in Christians or any other group.

[beam me up scottie]

109. I agree with you 100%

I find Harris to be obnoxious at times, but he stops far short of rallying the troops to attack believers.
His beef is with belief in the supernatural, magical thinking, if you will, and the way it adversely affects society.


Now the fundies, on the other hand, are known for their belief that people like me are the cause of evil in the world and should be converted or exterminated.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. I believe in live and let live.

I honestly don't believe what somebody believes, especially when you are talking about abstractions like deities. If they're not harming others with those beliefs, then I have no basis for any kind of beef with them. If they are harming others based on those beliefs, then I'm more concerned with addressing the behavior.

If someone has a belief in harming or hating others, rather than simply a belief in some abstract construction that can neither be proved or disproved, then those beliefs should be addressed. Ultimately, I think we need to promote tolerance, and the notion of beliefs as something personal, and not something to be shoved down other people's throats.

I'm as disgusted by the fundies as anyone else. I don't equate them with all Christians though. I have a great deal of respect for people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers.

[beam me up scottie]

113. I see it differently.

I see how fundamentalist religions have thwarted science at every step.

I see how christians are still preventing women from exercising their right to choose.

I see how they still attack science at every turn, they fight every technological advancement.

I see them forcing religion back into the classrooms of our public schools.

I see how they intend to turn this into a theocracy-and how close they are to succeeding.

I see how they have used their religion to oppress and persecute women, minorities and non-christians for thousands of years, and how they still do today.

So while I may agree with you that liberal christians themselves are no threat to me, and while I don't want to deconvert anyone, I do sincerely think that fundamentalist religions like christianity have had, and still do, horribly adverse effects on society.

And until people stop making laws based on centuries old bigotry and superstition, we'll never truly be out of the dark ages.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. I don't think that I disagree with anything in that post. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

115. Oh, good.

I'm a natural life long atheist, I've spent most of my life going :wtf:

So I can't blame anyone who doesn't see things from my pov.

[Crunchy Frog]

116. I hope you read me correctly.

I said that I agreed with you. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

119. Scottie

Religion has done all that...and more.

Faith, in an of itself, is not a bad thing IMO. It has never been a problem for me. It is when you try and formalize it, regulate it, refine it, homogenize it and pay the preacher a living wage that you get in trouble. And so much feeds into it: gender issues, money, power, sexuality.

If atheists would organize and buy a building, have a capital fund drive, pay the leader and try and pick out the colors for the atheist fellowship hall curtains, they'd be fighting each other right and left just like the rest of it. Religion is about the best example I can think of of how humans can really screw things up.

And yet... I want the freedom to belong to one. Just like I might want to belong to the Loyal Order of Moose or the Elks.

[Zenlitened]

117. "... Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make...

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.

:rofl: :applause: :D