Imagine there's no heaven
December 11, 2005 1:52 PM Subscribe
An Atheist Manifesto. Another remarkable Truthdig article. Please read the entire feature before commenting on it, as the author addresses most of the usual apologetic arguments. Some of my favorite lines:
Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.
...a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma.
Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.
Also, kindly try to refrain from the tired old argument, "atheism is just another religion." It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.
...a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma.
Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.
Also, kindly try to refrain from the tired old argument, "atheism is just another religion." It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
This post was deleted for the following reason: People don't seem to like it, no sir.
You've got to be kidding me.
posted by languagehat at 1:58 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by languagehat at 1:58 PM on December 11, 2005
This was presented in the wrong way.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:00 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 2:00 PM on December 11, 2005
I think I'll think whatever the hell I want to think.
Whaddya think about that?
posted by Dr. Wu at 2:00 PM on December 11, 2005
Whaddya think about that?
posted by Dr. Wu at 2:00 PM on December 11, 2005
in the United States it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.
The US has about 5% of the world population. Many birds, it would seem, are worth two in the bush.
Equally as meaningless and unconected a set of two statements.
posted by HTuttle at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2005
The US has about 5% of the world population. Many birds, it would seem, are worth two in the bush.
Equally as meaningless and unconected a set of two statements.
posted by HTuttle at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2005
This is not a manifesto. A manifesto is a statement of principles and a call for action. This is more like a tendentious features piece in some worthy sunday newspaper.
Here's a proper manifesto:
Here's a proper manifesto:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.posted by athenian at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2005
Kindly try to refrain from posting manifestos again, especially while employing the tired old rhetorical flourishes. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2005
Please read the entire feature before commenting on it
No. Three paragraphs were plenty. It sucked.
posted by LarryC at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2005
No. Three paragraphs were plenty. It sucked.
posted by LarryC at 2:10 PM on December 11, 2005
Also, kindly try to refrain from the tired old argument, "atheism is just another religion." It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
Awesome. Also, please refrain from disagreeing with me. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
Thanks.
posted by verb at 2:14 PM on December 11, 2005
Awesome. Also, please refrain from disagreeing with me. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest/lazy.
Thanks.
posted by verb at 2:14 PM on December 11, 2005
Evangelical Athiesm sucks just as much as Evangelical Christianity.
Dr. Wu had it right...
posted by horsemuth at 2:14 PM on December 11, 2005
Dr. Wu had it right...
posted by horsemuth at 2:14 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism is just another religion.
posted by brain_drain at 2:17 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by brain_drain at 2:17 PM on December 11, 2005
Neither remarkable, nor a manifesto.
[Please eat a peanut butter sandwich before responding to this comment. Anything else would be gastronomically dishonest/lazy.]
posted by milquetoast at 2:20 PM on December 11, 2005
[Please eat a peanut butter sandwich before responding to this comment. Anything else would be gastronomically dishonest/lazy.]
posted by milquetoast at 2:20 PM on December 11, 2005
I could see this piece turning agnostics into believers.
Atheism is a "refusal to deny the obvious"? When you take as given that which you attempt to prove, you lose your argument by default.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 2:20 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism is a "refusal to deny the obvious"? When you take as given that which you attempt to prove, you lose your argument by default.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 2:20 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't like the way this link was presented and you posted the one of the dumbest parts as your favorite.
I enjoyed the article but I don't think atheists are any kinder or more moral than other humans. Belief in god is silly and ultimately wasteful, but it doesn't makes people behave any worse in terms of net effect. Rather it dictates the forms and targets of brutality, oppression, and hate.
Humans are essentially selfish and this isn't totally a bad thing, still, if people can commit atrocities pinned to the mantle of such a childish fiction as religion I do not doubt that if we saw it as necessary we could construct more sophisticated and terrestrial rationals for the very same actions. My point is humans are more selfish and brutal and lazy and callous than most will admit. Because we are in denial of our nature we are incredibly adept at inventing "noble" sounding reasons for our inevitable cruelty. Religion is a powerful tool for veiling our motives but it's not the only tool. Just as we have learned enough about the world to cast religions absurdity into starker relief so to have we innovated (and will continue to innovate) new ideologies to cloak our baser motives. Humans change less than the article suggests with such mere changes of dress. A veneer of reason.
posted by I Foody at 2:21 PM on December 11, 2005
I enjoyed the article but I don't think atheists are any kinder or more moral than other humans. Belief in god is silly and ultimately wasteful, but it doesn't makes people behave any worse in terms of net effect. Rather it dictates the forms and targets of brutality, oppression, and hate.
Humans are essentially selfish and this isn't totally a bad thing, still, if people can commit atrocities pinned to the mantle of such a childish fiction as religion I do not doubt that if we saw it as necessary we could construct more sophisticated and terrestrial rationals for the very same actions. My point is humans are more selfish and brutal and lazy and callous than most will admit. Because we are in denial of our nature we are incredibly adept at inventing "noble" sounding reasons for our inevitable cruelty. Religion is a powerful tool for veiling our motives but it's not the only tool. Just as we have learned enough about the world to cast religions absurdity into starker relief so to have we innovated (and will continue to innovate) new ideologies to cloak our baser motives. Humans change less than the article suggests with such mere changes of dress. A veneer of reason.
posted by I Foody at 2:21 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.
Atheist are in denial according to the author. Whoa, if he says so it must be true ! He also said pigs can fly (but he later added..if you bring em on a plane !)
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
No really an atheist doesn't care, he just believes there is no god. No asking of proof to anybody..why bother asking for a proof if one believes there's no proof ?
The author is just a troll.
posted by elpapacito at 2:22 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheist are in denial according to the author. Whoa, if he says so it must be true ! He also said pigs can fly (but he later added..if you bring em on a plane !)
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
No really an atheist doesn't care, he just believes there is no god. No asking of proof to anybody..why bother asking for a proof if one believes there's no proof ?
The author is just a troll.
posted by elpapacito at 2:22 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism suffers from "Dr. Kevorkian syndrome:" The cause is noble and just, its adherents are clearly logically and dogmatically correct, but the torch is carried by absolute nutcases.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:26 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:26 PM on December 11, 2005
By coincidence, I'm reading this guy's book, The End of Faith, at the moment, and it isn't much better. For every clever analogy or a-ha! moment, there's two absurd-on-their-face, reductive claims. I find the whole thing rather sophomoric, and with someone like me he's preaching to the choir.
posted by BackwardsCity at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by BackwardsCity at 2:27 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism is a "refusal to deny the obvious"? When you take as given that which you attempt to prove, you lose your argument by default.
This is actually the precise definition of the oft-misused term "begging the question".
As for the article, I've just read about two pages and seen nothing that I disagree with. Nevertheless it's every bit as blatant an exercise in preaching to the choir as you'll ever see on the theistic side of things; is meant to reinforce what the reader already beleives and isn't going to convince anyone of anything... I don't think it even intends to. And this post really blows.
On preview, what Saucy Intruder said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2005
This is actually the precise definition of the oft-misused term "begging the question".
As for the article, I've just read about two pages and seen nothing that I disagree with. Nevertheless it's every bit as blatant an exercise in preaching to the choir as you'll ever see on the theistic side of things; is meant to reinforce what the reader already beleives and isn't going to convince anyone of anything... I don't think it even intends to. And this post really blows.
On preview, what Saucy Intruder said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2005
While it wasn't intended as an inflammatory statement, my rejection of the "just another religion" argument seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. OK, if you think so, convince me. (Snarky one liners rather reinforce my current opinion, however.)
posted by Finder at 2:29 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Finder at 2:29 PM on December 11, 2005
Another remarkable waste of time. Tell ya what, this thing survives to 200 comments, I'll swing by again and see if anything new happened. Cheers.
posted by scheptech at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by scheptech at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2005
I think Sam Harris is missing the point.
posted by sour cream at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by sour cream at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2005
Btw, why is this "preaching to the choir?" Or for that matter why assume that an article about religion has to be some form of "preaching?"
posted by Finder at 2:32 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Finder at 2:32 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism: just another religion. If the definition of 'religion' is close-minded people who condescend and/or yell at you when you don't agree with them? Yeah.
posted by Football Bat at 2:33 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Football Bat at 2:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Not only is atheism just another religion, but I'm commenting on this before reading through the entire feature.
posted by danb at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by danb at 2:35 PM on December 11, 2005
I_Foody claims Humans are essentially selfish.
I disagree. I think that idea is propaganda, preached by various liars for their own nefarious purposes. Look into your heart for a moment. Do you really want to hurt others? Or would you get more pleasure from helping them?
Humans are essentially kind and good. For example, humans choose by preference to share their food with other members of their group, rather than eat alone.
Indeed, if we were selfish by nature, we would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago, being unable to form effective co-operative groups.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is selfish by nature. And dishonest. The same applies to hierarchy-based religions like Christianity, which claim that priests, Popes, etc, are closer to God than the rest of us. It's no accident that widespread belief in lies is heavily associated with income inequalities.
However, that doesn't in any way justify atheism, which is a dogmatic belief in something which can never, under any circumstances, be proven - namely the nonexistence of any God. If the author was arguing for agnosticism, he would have a far more convincing argument - but I imagine it wouldn't be so emotionally satisfying for him.
posted by cleardawn at 2:37 PM on December 11, 2005
I disagree. I think that idea is propaganda, preached by various liars for their own nefarious purposes. Look into your heart for a moment. Do you really want to hurt others? Or would you get more pleasure from helping them?
Humans are essentially kind and good. For example, humans choose by preference to share their food with other members of their group, rather than eat alone.
Indeed, if we were selfish by nature, we would have died out hundreds of thousands of years ago, being unable to form effective co-operative groups.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is selfish by nature. And dishonest. The same applies to hierarchy-based religions like Christianity, which claim that priests, Popes, etc, are closer to God than the rest of us. It's no accident that widespread belief in lies is heavily associated with income inequalities.
However, that doesn't in any way justify atheism, which is a dogmatic belief in something which can never, under any circumstances, be proven - namely the nonexistence of any God. If the author was arguing for agnosticism, he would have a far more convincing argument - but I imagine it wouldn't be so emotionally satisfying for him.
posted by cleardawn at 2:37 PM on December 11, 2005
Hey - did any of you guys know that Richard Pryor is dead?
posted by RokkitNite at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by RokkitNite at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2005
Btw, why is this "preaching to the choir?" Or for that matter why assume that an article about religion has to be some form of "preaching?"
posted by Finder at 2:32 PM PST on December 11 [!]
It seems it's just a chance for one atheist to soapbox to the others who already agree, rather than try to convince anyone. If the readers would likely say "Amen!", it's preaching to the choir.
posted by luftmensch at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Finder at 2:32 PM PST on December 11 [!]
It seems it's just a chance for one atheist to soapbox to the others who already agree, rather than try to convince anyone. If the readers would likely say "Amen!", it's preaching to the choir.
posted by luftmensch at 2:39 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm a sincere atheist and often strident in my stance, but the article in question is badly written, poorly thought-out and pretty much unworthy of further discussion.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by solid-one-love at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2005
You're something else, Finder. Digging on snarky one-liners? When you start off the thread with a snarky one-liner?
The reason you're not getting good responses is that you come off sounding arrogant and condescending. It's pretty clear that any attempt at a debate would just go in circles.
posted by PercussivePaul at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2005
The reason you're not getting good responses is that you come off sounding arrogant and condescending. It's pretty clear that any attempt at a debate would just go in circles.
posted by PercussivePaul at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism isn't inherently a religion, and rationally it should not be a religion, and I'd venture that for most people it is not. But some people are capable of turning anything they feel passionately about into a religion: the ones like this one, who preach it, brother! and provide the theists with exactly the straw man they're looking for.
Or again, what Saucy Intruder said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
Or again, what Saucy Intruder said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
I am an atheist, and I as well agree that the post was in poor taste and that the post and the article linked lean towards the kind of preaching we atheists disdain in pretty much all forms, inlcuding to our own beliefs. But I don't want to rag on this guy Sam Harris too much, he is after all right in what he says. And though he is brash and confrontational in his language, perhaps to the point of defeating his own purpose in exposing believers to new ideas, I also understand that this is born of great urgency. Religion has always been a dangerous and unreasonable creature, but the situation in America is, as Harris says, becoming ever more dangerous for the whole world. America has the most poweful military in the world by far, and as we lean farther and farther towards tearing down science, reason, evidence how much farther do we have to go down this road before this vast army is called to a new crusade? I'm not suggesting it would be a crusade like the first one, of Christians slaughtering Jews and Muslims, but rather a war against the rational. A war every bit as "us versus them" as the original crusades and guided as well by religious fanaticism, even if not against other fanatics. People like Pat Robertson have a lot of sway in this country, and if he was in charge our military would be bombing museums and laboratories... how much longer can we go on like this before people start to agree that this is a good idea?
posted by Farengast at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
See, Finder, Metafilter is widely regarded as a gathering point for right wing, religious fundamental Republicans. Every once in a while, Matt Haughey (who, until last month, was in charge of prepping Tom Delay for media appearances) lets in five or six self-confessed atheist liberals to serve as punching bags for the cryptofascist supermajority. Like moths to a flame, badly written articles about popular leftist topics attract these pinkos. We then expose them as terrorist sympathizers and ban them until they promise to "stay the course." This gets lots of laughs.
So in other words, you're preaching to the choir.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
So in other words, you're preaching to the choir.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
The best explanation I've yet read of the humans are inherently selfish/kind contradictions in small-scale and large-scale behavior is the idea of the monkeysphere.
posted by luftmensch at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by luftmensch at 2:41 PM on December 11, 2005
There are a small percentage of humans who are selfish and dishonest. These psychopaths are the ones who start dishonest religions (claiming that God told me to be leader, and that you must all obey me ... ) and also tend to be very successful in business.
There are some religious leaders, however, who I believe to be absolutely genuine. Their personal humility and lack of wealth is a good indicator. Consider Maharaj-ji Neem Karoli Baba, for example, or Gautama Buddha.
posted by cleardawn at 2:42 PM on December 11, 2005
There are some religious leaders, however, who I believe to be absolutely genuine. Their personal humility and lack of wealth is a good indicator. Consider Maharaj-ji Neem Karoli Baba, for example, or Gautama Buddha.
posted by cleardawn at 2:42 PM on December 11, 2005
People who think Atheism is just another religion strike me as being so brainwashed by the belief in god that they can't comprehend that some people don't have it, too.
posted by freedryk at 2:42 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by freedryk at 2:42 PM on December 11, 2005
Well I didn't think it was all bad. For example "epistemological Ponzi schemes" was a great term that I hadn't heard before. But the sections quoted in the FPP are truly quite dumb.
posted by keijo at 2:43 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by keijo at 2:43 PM on December 11, 2005
The monkeysphere is an accurate discussion of how monkey brains work. However, as humans, we do not have to be limited in our compassion by the number of people whose faces we can remember.
Here's a different - better - approach to the same question.
posted by cleardawn at 2:50 PM on December 11, 2005
Here's a different - better - approach to the same question.
posted by cleardawn at 2:50 PM on December 11, 2005
However, that doesn't in any way justify atheism, which is a dogmatic belief in something which can never, under any circumstances, be proven - namely the nonexistence of any God.
On the other hand the nonexistence of the Biblical God can be relatively easily proven. I think a lot of people here missed one point the author is making: namely that the increasing influence of the adherents of religious fundamentalism is dangerous, and they draw strentgh from the tendency of nonbelievers and moderate believers to pussyfoot around anything involving "people's deeply held beliefs."
posted by Finder at 2:51 PM on December 11, 2005
On the other hand the nonexistence of the Biblical God can be relatively easily proven. I think a lot of people here missed one point the author is making: namely that the increasing influence of the adherents of religious fundamentalism is dangerous, and they draw strentgh from the tendency of nonbelievers and moderate believers to pussyfoot around anything involving "people's deeply held beliefs."
posted by Finder at 2:51 PM on December 11, 2005
Buh? Countdown to deletion in 5..4..3...
posted by Space Kitty at 2:51 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Space Kitty at 2:51 PM on December 11, 2005
Since when has the "obvious" ever been a salve for the souls of humanity? Marx called religion the opiate of the masses not because they were blinded by it, but because it afforded some small relief against the grinding onslaught of daily suffering that is most people's lot in life. A large percentage of people on this planet when recognizing the "obvious" have absolutely no means to do anything about it. How's that for realism?
posted by gallois at 2:52 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by gallois at 2:52 PM on December 11, 2005
The article makes the same mistake about god that religious people do (I'm agnostic): that s/he must be good. Why do atheists like that author overlook the possibility that god exisits, and that rather than evil being the proof of the opposite, it really only serves as proof of god not sharing the same values of good and evil as us.
I'm really very bothered by the idea that you can mock people for their lack of common sense, and then try to logically prove something does not exist. It's one thing to show a lack of evidence for it's existance (which, I think, would lead to being agnostic in this case) but it's not logical to use the existance of evil to disprove the existance of god. And if you're going to try you need to hit a much higher level of debate and reason first.
IMO If you haven't read Descartes' reasoning on the issue, you shouldn't be allowed to play with the ball.
posted by tiamat at 2:54 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm really very bothered by the idea that you can mock people for their lack of common sense, and then try to logically prove something does not exist. It's one thing to show a lack of evidence for it's existance (which, I think, would lead to being agnostic in this case) but it's not logical to use the existance of evil to disprove the existance of god. And if you're going to try you need to hit a much higher level of debate and reason first.
IMO If you haven't read Descartes' reasoning on the issue, you shouldn't be allowed to play with the ball.
posted by tiamat at 2:54 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm a humanist, and I thought it sucked. It read like the bleatings of a sophmoric objectivist high on his own imagined superiority. The parts that annoyed me the most:
1) The tedious blaming of religion for all the world's problems, and claiming atheism as the pinnacle of moral virtue in response to all the nasty things those believers do. Religion has indeed resulted in several catastrophes over the course of human history. But if you want to get down to brass tacks, the degree of suffering caused by plain old warfare for the sake of loot and political advantage dwarfs that of any crusade or jihad.
2) Somehow, tortuously connecting the 20th century's great despots to religion and irrationality. Many of these societies (particular the USSR and China under the CCP) perverted their Marxist foundations of rationality into a worship of their godlike leaders. These societies were often perfectly rational, based upon a set of assumptions that were rotten to the core. Their problems and their crimes had nothing to do with the theist / atheist debate -- they were cultural.
3) Correlating levels of religious belief with levels of poverty and suffering, implying causation, then slyly dodging that criticism saying "Of course that doesn't really prove causation!". Then why the hell did he bring it up in the first place? He then follows that up with MORE dubious correlation. Bah.
The author complains that the term "atheist" requires him to define himself specifically in opposition to religion, then spends four pages . . . defining himself in opposition to religion. He should have devoted more time to defining what he DOES believe in -- the perennial problem of humanism -- and less time getting back at Mom for making him go to Church.
posted by xthlc at 2:56 PM on December 11, 2005
1) The tedious blaming of religion for all the world's problems, and claiming atheism as the pinnacle of moral virtue in response to all the nasty things those believers do. Religion has indeed resulted in several catastrophes over the course of human history. But if you want to get down to brass tacks, the degree of suffering caused by plain old warfare for the sake of loot and political advantage dwarfs that of any crusade or jihad.
2) Somehow, tortuously connecting the 20th century's great despots to religion and irrationality. Many of these societies (particular the USSR and China under the CCP) perverted their Marxist foundations of rationality into a worship of their godlike leaders. These societies were often perfectly rational, based upon a set of assumptions that were rotten to the core. Their problems and their crimes had nothing to do with the theist / atheist debate -- they were cultural.
3) Correlating levels of religious belief with levels of poverty and suffering, implying causation, then slyly dodging that criticism saying "Of course that doesn't really prove causation!". Then why the hell did he bring it up in the first place? He then follows that up with MORE dubious correlation. Bah.
The author complains that the term "atheist" requires him to define himself specifically in opposition to religion, then spends four pages . . . defining himself in opposition to religion. He should have devoted more time to defining what he DOES believe in -- the perennial problem of humanism -- and less time getting back at Mom for making him go to Church.
posted by xthlc at 2:56 PM on December 11, 2005
Finder has a very good point. I can't remember who said it, but there's a good quote about politics that basically says if you're not upsetting the dumb people, you're not doing it right. I agree.
My belief? You can do whatever you want in your church/mosque/temple/etc. but when you want to make a policy decision in gov't you had better base it on something more than a 1600 year old book.
posted by tiamat at 2:57 PM on December 11, 2005
My belief? You can do whatever you want in your church/mosque/temple/etc. but when you want to make a policy decision in gov't you had better base it on something more than a 1600 year old book.
posted by tiamat at 2:57 PM on December 11, 2005
What the hell is the point of this? He can write whatever he wants, but this post? Is it original? Web-related? Best thereof?
I don't know what I am. I'm not going to say there is no God, since I'm not sure that it could be proven, but I'm talking God of the philosophers here, not a traditional monotheistic deity. Much as I was annoyed by having to read Plantingua it caused me to question the point of convincing anybody about God. I guess that makes me an agnostic, but I'm pretty uninterested in the whole religion thing (just as I am uninterested about the existence of sundry other Droguli) and live my life without regard to religion, or an afterlife, so in that sense I'm not so different from an atheist. Am I just less obnoxious?
posted by maledictory at 2:57 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't know what I am. I'm not going to say there is no God, since I'm not sure that it could be proven, but I'm talking God of the philosophers here, not a traditional monotheistic deity. Much as I was annoyed by having to read Plantingua it caused me to question the point of convincing anybody about God. I guess that makes me an agnostic, but I'm pretty uninterested in the whole religion thing (just as I am uninterested about the existence of sundry other Droguli) and live my life without regard to religion, or an afterlife, so in that sense I'm not so different from an atheist. Am I just less obnoxious?
posted by maledictory at 2:57 PM on December 11, 2005
I should clarify, I'm not saying all religious people are dumb, just the ones who try to sell theirs to me and set public policy with it.
posted by tiamat at 2:59 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by tiamat at 2:59 PM on December 11, 2005
Cleardawn : I still think humans are essentially selfish, selfishness doesn't imply malice. I would get little pleasure from hurting others, I would get more from helping others and more still from others helping me. I think we're operating on different definitions. I don't think that selfishness is incompatible with kindness and goodness. I'm using selfishness meaning placing a primacy on one's own well being.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is selfish by nature. And dishonest
Well I agree with the first part, what makes capitalism dishonest? I have many problems with capitalism but I don't see dishonesty as one of them. I'm actually curious about this point.
However, that doesn't in any way justify atheism, which is a dogmatic belief in something which can never, under any circumstances, be proven - namely the nonexistence of any God.
This is wrong though, because that's not what atheism is. Atheism isn't the belief that there is not god, it's the absence of belief in god. One can be both agnostic and atheist.
I don't believe in ghosts, there are many people that do and claim to have seen ghosts. Belief that the dead interact with the living was as common as belief in god for most of human existence. It's still pretty common. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence for it. I don't find it particularly convincing so I don't believe it. I claim no certainty that I'm right, but believing is a verb; it's an action I take or I don't, and on ghosts and gods I don't.
posted by I Foody at 3:01 PM on December 11, 2005
Capitalism, on the other hand, is selfish by nature. And dishonest
Well I agree with the first part, what makes capitalism dishonest? I have many problems with capitalism but I don't see dishonesty as one of them. I'm actually curious about this point.
However, that doesn't in any way justify atheism, which is a dogmatic belief in something which can never, under any circumstances, be proven - namely the nonexistence of any God.
This is wrong though, because that's not what atheism is. Atheism isn't the belief that there is not god, it's the absence of belief in god. One can be both agnostic and atheist.
I don't believe in ghosts, there are many people that do and claim to have seen ghosts. Belief that the dead interact with the living was as common as belief in god for most of human existence. It's still pretty common. So there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence for it. I don't find it particularly convincing so I don't believe it. I claim no certainty that I'm right, but believing is a verb; it's an action I take or I don't, and on ghosts and gods I don't.
posted by I Foody at 3:01 PM on December 11, 2005
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.
Spot on. I like Sam Harris a lot. His Idea City appearance is worth viewing.
posted by fleetmouse at 3:02 PM on December 11, 2005
Spot on. I like Sam Harris a lot. His Idea City appearance is worth viewing.
posted by fleetmouse at 3:02 PM on December 11, 2005
CTHULHU THINKS YOU'D MAKE A TASTY MEATSNACK
posted by loquacious at 3:03 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by loquacious at 3:03 PM on December 11, 2005
Well, shit. I read this article this morning and thought, "hmm, would be interesting to see critiques of this from the MeFi crowd" because I liked parts of it but then found others questionable but couldn't quite articulate why, and then it has to get posted like THAT.
Whatever, let's just snark about impending deletion.
Personally, I'm atheist, but I don't think religion is the problem, exactly. I think anything that gets taken up like that can be problematic, whether it's Jesus or Marx or vegetarianism. Mass movements do something weird to people.
posted by heatherann at 3:05 PM on December 11, 2005
Whatever, let's just snark about impending deletion.
Personally, I'm atheist, but I don't think religion is the problem, exactly. I think anything that gets taken up like that can be problematic, whether it's Jesus or Marx or vegetarianism. Mass movements do something weird to people.
posted by heatherann at 3:05 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm really very bothered by the idea that you can mock people for their lack of common sense, and then try to logically prove something does not exist.
Tiamat wins.
posted by LarryC at 3:08 PM on December 11, 2005
Tiamat wins.
posted by LarryC at 3:08 PM on December 11, 2005
the nonexistence of the Biblical God can be relatively easily proven.
Absolutely. And I agree that it's important to get that message out. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are flat out lies, and any semi-literate teenager of average intelligence should be able to see that - and if they can't, we should do everything we can to help them see it, for our own benefit as well as theirs.
There is absolutely no justification for any intelligent person to continue to prop up those evil, false belief systems.
But I don't think atheism is the right tool for the job. The replacement for the Abrahamic monotheisms has to be something that provides a superior moral framework - otherwise you run the risk of creating little Hitlers and Maos out of your ex-Christians.
Take your pick of compassionate science, Nature-worship, Dharmic socialism, humanism, compassionate agnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Taoism (arguably, they're all the same thing in different words) - they're all leaps and bounds ahead of that fraud Moses. But it's a mistake to argue strongly for atheism when it can't really be justified, and is difficult to distinguish from nihilism - which is not, to my mind, a beneficial point of view, even when compared to the outright lies of Christianity.
posted by cleardawn at 3:10 PM on December 11, 2005
Absolutely. And I agree that it's important to get that message out. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are flat out lies, and any semi-literate teenager of average intelligence should be able to see that - and if they can't, we should do everything we can to help them see it, for our own benefit as well as theirs.
There is absolutely no justification for any intelligent person to continue to prop up those evil, false belief systems.
But I don't think atheism is the right tool for the job. The replacement for the Abrahamic monotheisms has to be something that provides a superior moral framework - otherwise you run the risk of creating little Hitlers and Maos out of your ex-Christians.
Take your pick of compassionate science, Nature-worship, Dharmic socialism, humanism, compassionate agnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Taoism (arguably, they're all the same thing in different words) - they're all leaps and bounds ahead of that fraud Moses. But it's a mistake to argue strongly for atheism when it can't really be justified, and is difficult to distinguish from nihilism - which is not, to my mind, a beneficial point of view, even when compared to the outright lies of Christianity.
posted by cleardawn at 3:10 PM on December 11, 2005
" OK, if you think so, convince me. (Snarky one liners rather reinforce my current opinion, however.)"
OH NOES I MUST NOT REINFORCE YOUR OPINION!
posted by klangklangston at 3:11 PM on December 11, 2005
OH NOES I MUST NOT REINFORCE YOUR OPINION!
posted by klangklangston at 3:11 PM on December 11, 2005
People who think Atheism is just another religion strike me as being so brainwashed by the belief in god that they can't comprehend that some people don't have it, too.
Atheism woudn't come across as another religion if its believers would just stop proselytizing. Honestly. They're worse than the born-agains.
posted by small_ruminant at 3:12 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism woudn't come across as another religion if its believers would just stop proselytizing. Honestly. They're worse than the born-agains.
posted by small_ruminant at 3:12 PM on December 11, 2005
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no god...."
I don't think it is that believing there is a God is illogical; rather, that for most atheists, having Him around would be darned inconvenient. I mean, having a Supreme Being around would require acknowledging that one was not really in control of one's life after all, for instance. For some reason that irritates people.
posted by konolia at 3:15 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't think it is that believing there is a God is illogical; rather, that for most atheists, having Him around would be darned inconvenient. I mean, having a Supreme Being around would require acknowledging that one was not really in control of one's life after all, for instance. For some reason that irritates people.
posted by konolia at 3:15 PM on December 11, 2005
Just to be clear: "Religion causes bad things" Is not a reason to be an Atheist. It's a reason to come up with a better religion.
The reason to be an Atheist is because god doesn't exist. I don't want to read a socioeconomic diatribe against religion, that's just completely pointless.
By the way, for those to lazy to read the whole thing, here's a Microsoft word summary:
The reason to be an Atheist is because god doesn't exist. I don't want to read a socioeconomic diatribe against religion, that's just completely pointless.
By the way, for those to lazy to read the whole thing, here's a Microsoft word summary:
posted by delmoi at 3:15 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. God told no one of his plans. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.
God’s ways are, indeed, inscrutable. Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce resources—is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. If God exists, his will is not inscrutable. It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in God simply because this belief makes him happy, relieves his fear of death or gives his life meaning. Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.—and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews versus Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians versus Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians versus Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants versus Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims versus Hindus), Sudan (Muslims versus Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims versus Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims versus Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists versus Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims versus Timorese Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite versus Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians versus Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis versus Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In a world riven by ignorance, only the atheist refuses to deny the obvious: Religious faith promotes human violence to an astonishing degree. (2) Larger numbers of people are inclined toward religious conflict simply because their religion constitutes the core of their moral identities. Many religious conflicts that seem driven by terrestrial concerns, therefore, are religious in origin. Why is religion such a potent source of human violence?
*Religious faith is a conversation-stopper.
Timat has a good point, but referencing Descartes was a dull move. Descartes' arguments about god are deeply flawed and devoid of coherent logic. 1. I think therefore I am: good, it works. 2. If I exist, something must have created me: sounds reasonable, but is pushing the boundaries of unfounded assumption. 3. If I was created, something must have created me. The Creator, God: forget playing with the ball, Descartes drops the ball off a cliff here. His logic is sound, but his assertions are not. That in order to exist one must be created sounds reasonable, but who says that must be true. There is no reason why that must be true. Descartes also leaves out the possibility that he WAS created.... by HIS PARENTS. We here at MeFi believe in evolution, so we know that god didn't craft us with his almight hand. That a thinking being like Descartes could and did arise from the great power that is reproduction with heridity and modification. Thus Descartes argument for the existence of a creator is unreasonable even during his own time, and today simply foolish. I aplaude your interest in the classics of philosophy, Tiamat, but you'll have to do better than Descartes.
posted by Farengast at 3:16 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 3:16 PM on December 11, 2005
[Atheists are] worse than the born-agains.
Definitely. Especially when they try to set science curricula via legistlation and mount gilded copies of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian in state capitol buildings.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:18 PM on December 11, 2005
Definitely. Especially when they try to set science curricula via legistlation and mount gilded copies of Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian in state capitol buildings.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:18 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism: just another religion
Allow me to edit:
A theism: just another religion
There. Now it sort of works.
posted by srboisvert at 3:19 PM on December 11, 2005
Allow me to edit:
A theism: just another religion
There. Now it sort of works.
posted by srboisvert at 3:19 PM on December 11, 2005
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
Is he out of his mind? Why the hell would I want that? There is no proof of god, but that doesn't mean religious people can't spend hours and hours trying to prove it.
posted by delmoi at 3:22 PM on December 11, 2005
Is he out of his mind? Why the hell would I want that? There is no proof of god, but that doesn't mean religious people can't spend hours and hours trying to prove it.
posted by delmoi at 3:22 PM on December 11, 2005
I would get more from helping others and more still from others helping me.
Is that right? Really? Think about it. Would you prefer to play the role of the big, strong, generous helper, or the weak, needy helpee?
what makes capitalism dishonest?
Now there's a question! Let's start with "buy cheap, sell dear" and then consider the exploitation of the poor by the rich which is mandated by capitalism. Then look at some TV adverts and ask yourself how honest and accurate they are. Do they give both sides of the story? Why not?
Then watch the movie, "The Corporation". You can, er, probably download it free from somewhere...
posted by cleardawn at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2005
Is that right? Really? Think about it. Would you prefer to play the role of the big, strong, generous helper, or the weak, needy helpee?
what makes capitalism dishonest?
Now there's a question! Let's start with "buy cheap, sell dear" and then consider the exploitation of the poor by the rich which is mandated by capitalism. Then look at some TV adverts and ask yourself how honest and accurate they are. Do they give both sides of the story? Why not?
Then watch the movie, "The Corporation". You can, er, probably download it free from somewhere...
posted by cleardawn at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast, I've always subscribed to the theory that descartes was making the argument he made, not the argument he said he was making. Given the publication date/location we'll never know for sure though.
posted by tiamat at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by tiamat at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2005
So, American CEO types are grossly overpaid? We need an Athiest Manifesto to figure that out? Hell no we don't, we just need to live in the Silicon Valley for a bit.
Hrm. Too long to read for a Sunday afternoon, but the huge flamewar in the comments was amusing for a few minutes.
posted by drstein at 3:29 PM on December 11, 2005
Hrm. Too long to read for a Sunday afternoon, but the huge flamewar in the comments was amusing for a few minutes.
posted by drstein at 3:29 PM on December 11, 2005
Is that right? Really? Think about it. Would you prefer to play the role of the big, strong, generous helper, or the weak, needy helpee?
I never said anything about big or strong or helpless and weak. Those adjectives don't necessarily have anything to do with getting vs. giving help.
I saw The Corporation and the laws governing the existence of corporations are a problem but one separate from capitalism itself. It's actually a problem that has more to do with collectivism because it diffuses responsibility from human beings to a more malleable entity, one that can't effectivly be punished.
posted by I Foody at 3:29 PM on December 11, 2005
I never said anything about big or strong or helpless and weak. Those adjectives don't necessarily have anything to do with getting vs. giving help.
I saw The Corporation and the laws governing the existence of corporations are a problem but one separate from capitalism itself. It's actually a problem that has more to do with collectivism because it diffuses responsibility from human beings to a more malleable entity, one that can't effectivly be punished.
posted by I Foody at 3:29 PM on December 11, 2005
IMO If you haven't read Descartes' reasoning on the issue, you shouldn't be allowed to play with the ball.
Descartes' reasoning on god is idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
Descartes' reasoning on god is idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
Tiamat, I've not heard that theory before... but it certainly makes more sense than the idea that a smart guy like Descartes jumped off a cliff as it would seem he did with his argument for the Creator. I would also like to take this opportunity to point people of this thread in a different direction of sorts. Anyone here annoyed at how the ideas here are good, but seriously mared by the presentation and the insensitivity of the link author? I suggest you get yourself a copy of A Very Short Introduction to: Atheism, by Julian Baggini. You may have seen other VSI books, there is a whole series. Baggini's book is quite excellent. He covers all the points, the logic and the arguments without unecessary rudeness to believers and without trying to convert people. It's simply a book ABOUT atheism, why atheists think like they do, not a book to turn people to atheism. And at 10 bucks and a nudge over 100 pages it is also very approachable. As an atheist I found it to be the perfect book to give to friends and family when I found that they didn't really understand what atheism was about, not to make them think like I do, but to give them an opportunity to see how I think.
posted by Farengast at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
Metafilter is just another religion.
posted by theonetruebix at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by theonetruebix at 3:31 PM on December 11, 2005
by the way, if Randriod objectivists (who consider themselves aithests) took over the ratio of CEO payment to lower workers would be like 4,000:1
posted by delmoi at 3:36 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by delmoi at 3:36 PM on December 11, 2005
I mean, having a Supreme Being around would require acknowledging that one was not really in control of one's life after all, for instance.
Funny, that doesn't seem to have stopped fundamentalists from wanting to control everyone else's life. If God is supposed to do that for you, why meddle?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:36 PM on December 11, 2005
Funny, that doesn't seem to have stopped fundamentalists from wanting to control everyone else's life. If God is supposed to do that for you, why meddle?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 3:36 PM on December 11, 2005
delmoi, translation is one thing, but paraphrasing the arguments completely ruins them. As I pointed out just above your comment, it's a close reading of the text that shows (I think) its true value.
posted by tiamat at 3:37 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by tiamat at 3:37 PM on December 11, 2005
Saucy Intruder has just raised an excellent point, one which I try to impress upon people when separation of church and state come up in conversation. Namely that it's stupid to legislate to uphold god's laws. God is perfectly capable of punishing trespasses upon his laws himself. Why should we send people to jail for sodomy when it is one of god's laws, let us then leave it to god to enforce that law. To do otherwise would be as the angel lucifer, to try to act as god and do his job ourselves. Of course this applies just as well to any kind of preaching not just government laws. Why should any Chrisitan tell any other person about obeying god's law, that is god's job. Of course much of the way that religions work falls apart under this logic, but that is just another example of the irrationality at work.
posted by Farengast at 3:42 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 3:42 PM on December 11, 2005
I've read my Descartes and his arguments aren't so much stupid as solipsistic. He clearly really wants to prove that there is god. So he goes through a fairly clever circus to do that. But it's an obviously flawed act. The idea of perfect can come from the idea of better applied recursively. How about absolute zero we can conceive of it and define it but it doesn't exist in this world. How about the idea of perfectly malicious omnipotent god. Descartes is a big deal but his proof of god can be fairly accurately restated as "Oh, how I wish there is a god, therefore god exists."
posted by I Foody at 3:48 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by I Foody at 3:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.
It's fascinating that the author uses a quote from Jesus to try to attack religion.
This demonstrates an interesting fact I've observed: Most leftists and liberals in the contemporary West follow an essentially Christian code of ethics and morals, even if they don't believe in God. Their general assumptions and attitudes tend to be in accord with Jesus' teachings regarding the inversion of the existing social order: the defense of the poor over the rich, the weak over the strong, inner reality over outward appearances, nonviolence over violence, refusing to punish those who violate "traditional" moral strictures, service to others as the highest calling, etc.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:51 PM on December 11, 2005
It's fascinating that the author uses a quote from Jesus to try to attack religion.
This demonstrates an interesting fact I've observed: Most leftists and liberals in the contemporary West follow an essentially Christian code of ethics and morals, even if they don't believe in God. Their general assumptions and attitudes tend to be in accord with Jesus' teachings regarding the inversion of the existing social order: the defense of the poor over the rich, the weak over the strong, inner reality over outward appearances, nonviolence over violence, refusing to punish those who violate "traditional" moral strictures, service to others as the highest calling, etc.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:51 PM on December 11, 2005
This demonstrates an interesting fact I've observed: Most leftists and liberals in the contemporary West follow an essentially Christian code of ethics and morals, even if they don't believe in God.
"secular humanist: one who follows the teachings of Christianity without actually believing in Christ.
Anarchist: Secular Humanist in a leather jacket."
-Boyd Rice
posted by jonmc at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2005
"secular humanist: one who follows the teachings of Christianity without actually believing in Christ.
Anarchist: Secular Humanist in a leather jacket."
-Boyd Rice
posted by jonmc at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast, satan wanted to be worshiped AS god, not do God's work for him.
As to the rest of what you wrote-if God tells you to do it, it's a good idea to say "yes, sir" then accomplish what He tells you to do. Being God He has the right to be obeyed.
posted by konolia at 3:57 PM on December 11, 2005
As to the rest of what you wrote-if God tells you to do it, it's a good idea to say "yes, sir" then accomplish what He tells you to do. Being God He has the right to be obeyed.
posted by konolia at 3:57 PM on December 11, 2005
Artifice_Eternity writes: It's fascinating that the author uses a quote from Jesus to try to attack religion.
Are you serious? This is a very ordinary rhetorical tactic: the use of the opposing position's precepts to make one's point. It has the side effect of implying hypocrisy. Is this really so out of the ordinary to you?
Most leftists and liberals in the contemporary West follow an essentially Christian code of ethics and morals, even if they don't believe in God. Their general assumptions and attitudes tend to be in accord with Jesus' teachings
Yep. And most Christians don't. Isn't that interesting?
Yes, I know I'm in no position to tar all Christians with that brush. But it's no more an overgeneralization than Artifice_Eternity's.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:59 PM on December 11, 2005
Are you serious? This is a very ordinary rhetorical tactic: the use of the opposing position's precepts to make one's point. It has the side effect of implying hypocrisy. Is this really so out of the ordinary to you?
Most leftists and liberals in the contemporary West follow an essentially Christian code of ethics and morals, even if they don't believe in God. Their general assumptions and attitudes tend to be in accord with Jesus' teachings
Yep. And most Christians don't. Isn't that interesting?
Yes, I know I'm in no position to tar all Christians with that brush. But it's no more an overgeneralization than Artifice_Eternity's.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:59 PM on December 11, 2005
Atheism tends to be irritating to me. I must be one of the stupid people.
posted by eighth_excerpt at 4:00 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by eighth_excerpt at 4:00 PM on December 11, 2005
Now there's a question! Let's start with "buy cheap, sell dear" and then consider the exploitation of the poor by the rich which is mandated by capitalism. Then look at some TV adverts and ask yourself how honest and accurate they are. Do they give both sides of the story? Why not?
I don't see anything there that indicates capitalism itself causes dishonesty. I defy you to point out any large-scale socioeconomic system that hasn't featured heaping helpings of exploitation. Capitalism doesn't mandate that, and it doesn't stop it, either. I suspect that's more an aspect of human nature than economics. I'm sure TV adverts in a command economy would be much more accurate, right?
Why should we send people to jail for sodomy when it is one of god's laws, let us then leave it to god to enforce that law.
I'm a big fan of sodomy myself, and I agree that there's nothing wrong with it. But you could say the same thing about murder. We'd probably all agree that murder is wrong. But why is it wrong? In the absence of God, what makes something wrong? I think that this question can be answered, but it's not as easy (and your answer probably won't be as satisfactory) as you might think.
Being God He has the right to be obeyed.
Why? If He wanted to be obeyed so much, why bother with free will? Your God strikes me as quite annoying, if not downright evil.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't see anything there that indicates capitalism itself causes dishonesty. I defy you to point out any large-scale socioeconomic system that hasn't featured heaping helpings of exploitation. Capitalism doesn't mandate that, and it doesn't stop it, either. I suspect that's more an aspect of human nature than economics. I'm sure TV adverts in a command economy would be much more accurate, right?
Why should we send people to jail for sodomy when it is one of god's laws, let us then leave it to god to enforce that law.
I'm a big fan of sodomy myself, and I agree that there's nothing wrong with it. But you could say the same thing about murder. We'd probably all agree that murder is wrong. But why is it wrong? In the absence of God, what makes something wrong? I think that this question can be answered, but it's not as easy (and your answer probably won't be as satisfactory) as you might think.
Being God He has the right to be obeyed.
Why? If He wanted to be obeyed so much, why bother with free will? Your God strikes me as quite annoying, if not downright evil.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2005
Why is it that when FDR, HST, IKE, JFK, RMN, Clinton and GB senior professed a belief in God it never worried me.
But Carter, Reagan and GB junior?
Scares/d the shite out of me!
posted by notreally at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2005
But Carter, Reagan and GB junior?
Scares/d the shite out of me!
posted by notreally at 4:02 PM on December 11, 2005
Regardless of one's opinion of the post, it serves a purpose in calling attention to the damage done supposedly in the service of a "superior" being. Organised religion had its place in spreading western civilisation but serves no good purpose in today's world. Worship what you will by all means but don't try to convert me to your belief system. Atheism does not qualify as a religion: it's the lack of belief in the supernatural, and its promotion should be encouraged.
The creeping fundamentalism of the US deeply worries me. Hardcore christian Americans and fundamentalist muslim Arabs clearly see each other in terms of good vs evil, and the clash over oil in the middle east only serves to further entrench both sides. Of course it's really about power and money, but organised religion creates a fertile recruiting ground for warriors on both sides.
More articles like this please and less hand-wringing about the presentation. Atheists are a threatened species in today's US.
posted by cbrody at 4:04 PM on December 11, 2005
The creeping fundamentalism of the US deeply worries me. Hardcore christian Americans and fundamentalist muslim Arabs clearly see each other in terms of good vs evil, and the clash over oil in the middle east only serves to further entrench both sides. Of course it's really about power and money, but organised religion creates a fertile recruiting ground for warriors on both sides.
More articles like this please and less hand-wringing about the presentation. Atheists are a threatened species in today's US.
posted by cbrody at 4:04 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia:
I don't think it is that believing there is a God is illogical; rather, that for most atheists, having Him around would be darned inconvenient. I mean, having a Supreme Being around would require acknowledging that one was not really in control of one's life after all, for instance. For some reason that irritates people.
Speaking as someone who does believe in "God" (in some sense -- but not a white-bearded guy on a throne throwing thunderbolts and obsessed with my sexual behavior), I disagree.
I have many agnostic and atheist friends, and I don't think they are refusing to believe in God because said belief would be inconvenient. I think they don't believe because they don't see any reason to.
These people (the ones I know, at least) are perfectly aware of the fact that they are not in full control of their lives. They just don't necessarily believe God is, either. Perhaps they credit fate, or the impersonal workings of the universe.
I find many religious people hugely irritating, for so many reasons. Smug assumptions about the motivations of non-religious folks is one reason.
Of course I find smug assumptions on the part of atheists about religious people ("You believe in an Imaginary Friend because you're weak-minded and afraid to face reality!") equally repugnant and condescending.
My view of reality happens to include the perception of a Higher Power. If you don't perceive it, so be it. Don't tell me I'm an idiot for seeing the world differently than you, and I'll extend you the same courtesy.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:05 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't think it is that believing there is a God is illogical; rather, that for most atheists, having Him around would be darned inconvenient. I mean, having a Supreme Being around would require acknowledging that one was not really in control of one's life after all, for instance. For some reason that irritates people.
Speaking as someone who does believe in "God" (in some sense -- but not a white-bearded guy on a throne throwing thunderbolts and obsessed with my sexual behavior), I disagree.
I have many agnostic and atheist friends, and I don't think they are refusing to believe in God because said belief would be inconvenient. I think they don't believe because they don't see any reason to.
These people (the ones I know, at least) are perfectly aware of the fact that they are not in full control of their lives. They just don't necessarily believe God is, either. Perhaps they credit fate, or the impersonal workings of the universe.
I find many religious people hugely irritating, for so many reasons. Smug assumptions about the motivations of non-religious folks is one reason.
Of course I find smug assumptions on the part of atheists about religious people ("You believe in an Imaginary Friend because you're weak-minded and afraid to face reality!") equally repugnant and condescending.
My view of reality happens to include the perception of a Higher Power. If you don't perceive it, so be it. Don't tell me I'm an idiot for seeing the world differently than you, and I'll extend you the same courtesy.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:05 PM on December 11, 2005
ok , i read it, and i think it was spot on.
this is the same kind of thinking i have been doing long before i left the church, long before i ever heard an "atheists" argument. and as such i have no respect for anyone confronted with this argument , who can ignore it. i figured this shit out on my own, what the hell is wrong with the rest of you?
posted by nola at 4:05 PM on December 11, 2005
this is the same kind of thinking i have been doing long before i left the church, long before i ever heard an "atheists" argument. and as such i have no respect for anyone confronted with this argument , who can ignore it. i figured this shit out on my own, what the hell is wrong with the rest of you?
posted by nola at 4:05 PM on December 11, 2005
George Spiggott:
Is this really so out of the ordinary to you?
I said it was fascinating, not out of the ordinary.
My larger point was that the author seemed to attach some credibility to the words of Jesus, which I feel demonstrates my point about the value systems of contemporary leftists/liberals.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:07 PM on December 11, 2005
Is this really so out of the ordinary to you?
I said it was fascinating, not out of the ordinary.
My larger point was that the author seemed to attach some credibility to the words of Jesus, which I feel demonstrates my point about the value systems of contemporary leftists/liberals.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:07 PM on December 11, 2005
Incompatible religious doctrines have balkanized our world into separate moral communities—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.—and these divisions have become a continuous source of human conflict.
that's fucking ignorant. balkanization began when the first caveman feared the second caveman. it got worse when he wanted to fuck his woman, and worse still when he stole his wooly mammoth rug.
posted by quonsar at 4:09 PM on December 11, 2005
that's fucking ignorant. balkanization began when the first caveman feared the second caveman. it got worse when he wanted to fuck his woman, and worse still when he stole his wooly mammoth rug.
posted by quonsar at 4:09 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia, does it make any kind of sense to you to put sodomites in jail even though god said they would be punished in the afterlife? If this life is but a test for the rewards of Paradise, why bother punishing anybody at all? The damage is already done to their spirit, and it won't help them to be absolved of their sin unless they repent anyway, which is something entirely independent of punishment, and in fact is more genuine in the absence of punishment. If this life is but a cosmic puddle compared to Paradise, why bother punishing people to maintain order? Does it benefit your spiritual goodness to not get robbed when walking down the street? No, it benefits your happiness in this real world with no regard at all to your spiritual existence in Paradise, but yet people still fight to have a better life here, to punish the wicked here and to save lives here. Why is that if this is but a proving ground and the suffering here meaningless compared to the afterlife? Why do believers cry when innocents die? They are in Paradise after all.
The point I'm trying to make here is that most believers actually speak to nonbeleif with their daily actions. The atheist cries for dead innocents because this life was all they had and now it's gone. But believers cry too, for no reason at all if they were truly believers. You can't claim to believe totally in an afterlife and the goodness of the guy in charge and at the same time put so much stock in your comfort and happiness here on earth. This is precisely why Harris points out moderately religous people as being truly irrational. True fanatics actually do give up their want of happiness on earth. I of course say "true fanatics" because Pat Robertson is very wealthy, as a strict student of Christ ought never to be while people are starving.
posted by Farengast at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
The point I'm trying to make here is that most believers actually speak to nonbeleif with their daily actions. The atheist cries for dead innocents because this life was all they had and now it's gone. But believers cry too, for no reason at all if they were truly believers. You can't claim to believe totally in an afterlife and the goodness of the guy in charge and at the same time put so much stock in your comfort and happiness here on earth. This is precisely why Harris points out moderately religous people as being truly irrational. True fanatics actually do give up their want of happiness on earth. I of course say "true fanatics" because Pat Robertson is very wealthy, as a strict student of Christ ought never to be while people are starving.
posted by Farengast at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
I stopped here, Tiamat.
I should clarify, I'm not saying all religious people are dumb, just the ones who try to sell theirs to me and set public policy with it.
I hate to tell you this, but some of these people are awfully clever -- and their plans to rejigger the laws of this country based on their beliefs are quite intricate. The rely on dumb people for mass, but the people at the top are brilliant and driven.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
I should clarify, I'm not saying all religious people are dumb, just the ones who try to sell theirs to me and set public policy with it.
I hate to tell you this, but some of these people are awfully clever -- and their plans to rejigger the laws of this country based on their beliefs are quite intricate. The rely on dumb people for mass, but the people at the top are brilliant and driven.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
and worse still when he stole his wooly mammoth rug.
It really tied the cave together.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
It really tied the cave together.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2005
Why? If He wanted to be obeyed so much, why bother with free will? Your God strikes me as quite annoying, if not downright evil.
Nah. Passive-aggressive and insecure.
Don't tell me I'm an idiot for seeing the world differently than you, and I'll extend you the same courtesy.
Or. He can call you idiot and you can call him an idiot. That would be ideal.
Problem is you COULD respond by calling him a blasphemer. Then, since your in the majority on this planet, you and a hundred friends can burn him at the stake, feel perfectly fine about it, and still get into heaven.
posted by tkchrist at 4:12 PM on December 11, 2005
Nah. Passive-aggressive and insecure.
Don't tell me I'm an idiot for seeing the world differently than you, and I'll extend you the same courtesy.
Or. He can call you idiot and you can call him an idiot. That would be ideal.
Problem is you COULD respond by calling him a blasphemer. Then, since your in the majority on this planet, you and a hundred friends can burn him at the stake, feel perfectly fine about it, and still get into heaven.
posted by tkchrist at 4:12 PM on December 11, 2005
tkchrist: Not me and my friends, no.
But maybe you and your atheist friends could have me arrested and sent to a gulag for re-education via hard labor.
(Generalizations suck.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:15 PM on December 11, 2005
But maybe you and your atheist friends could have me arrested and sent to a gulag for re-education via hard labor.
(Generalizations suck.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:15 PM on December 11, 2005
Religion: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion
def 4: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Atheism: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
def 2b: "the doctrine that there is no deity "
Doctrine: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/doctrine
def 2b: "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief "
Therefore the question is whether the doctrine of atheism is held to with ardor (def 1b) and faith (def 3).
I'd say yes, so it's true under a MW epistemological basis. Holds under the OED too I believe ^_^
posted by Mossy at 4:19 PM on December 11, 2005
def 4: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Atheism: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism
def 2b: "the doctrine that there is no deity "
Doctrine: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/doctrine
def 2b: "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief "
Therefore the question is whether the doctrine of atheism is held to with ardor (def 1b) and faith (def 3).
I'd say yes, so it's true under a MW epistemological basis. Holds under the OED too I believe ^_^
posted by Mossy at 4:19 PM on December 11, 2005
Finder, do you at all understand why many folks here feel that blatant editorializing should be left out of front page posts? If you're going to opine loudly, save it for inside the thread, preferably after letting the thread run its course without you for a while.
posted by mediareport at 4:20 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by mediareport at 4:20 PM on December 11, 2005
Artifice, has it occurred to you that perhaps it's more a case that Jesus was following an essentially liberal and leftist code of morals? His general attitudes and assumptions were in accord with many others, before and since, regarding the defence of the poor against the rich, nonviolence over violence, service to others, etc.
As for the camel argument, I believe the author was accusing rich Christians of hypocrisy - quite correctly. Jesus preached that poverty was the way to Heaven. Pat Robertson preaches greed, yet claims to follow Jesus. That is hypocrisy.
posted by cleardawn at 4:20 PM on December 11, 2005
As for the camel argument, I believe the author was accusing rich Christians of hypocrisy - quite correctly. Jesus preached that poverty was the way to Heaven. Pat Robertson preaches greed, yet claims to follow Jesus. That is hypocrisy.
posted by cleardawn at 4:20 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia, does it make any kind of sense to you to put sodomites in jail even though god said they would be punished in the afterlife
If I believed that God judged societies as well as individuals it would make perfect sense. (note here I did not give you an opinion on who actually needs to be in jail or not. Jail isn't really the point.)
God hates sin, and He hates that people tolerate it-and where people seem to tolerate it the most is in themselves. We are all so steeped in the pollution of sin that it is hard for us to see just how bad it really is.
Why? If He wanted to be obeyed so much, why bother with free will? Your God strikes me as quite annoying, if not downright evil.
Let's see-if you were to acknowledge God you would have to acknowledge how foolish you would have to be to make that statement. Think about it-saying that about a Being who had total power over your life to include throw you into Hell immediately-if He so chose. Anyhow your definition of evil seems to be that of crossing your own will-yet you call Him evil for having an alternate Will.
Interesting.
posted by konolia at 4:21 PM on December 11, 2005
If I believed that God judged societies as well as individuals it would make perfect sense. (note here I did not give you an opinion on who actually needs to be in jail or not. Jail isn't really the point.)
God hates sin, and He hates that people tolerate it-and where people seem to tolerate it the most is in themselves. We are all so steeped in the pollution of sin that it is hard for us to see just how bad it really is.
Why? If He wanted to be obeyed so much, why bother with free will? Your God strikes me as quite annoying, if not downright evil.
Let's see-if you were to acknowledge God you would have to acknowledge how foolish you would have to be to make that statement. Think about it-saying that about a Being who had total power over your life to include throw you into Hell immediately-if He so chose. Anyhow your definition of evil seems to be that of crossing your own will-yet you call Him evil for having an alternate Will.
Interesting.
posted by konolia at 4:21 PM on December 11, 2005
God hates sin, and He hates that people tolerate it-and where people seem to tolerate it the most is in themselves. We are all so steeped in the pollution of sin that it is hard for us to see just how bad it really is.
Did he tell you that himself? Or do you just think that because you read it in a book? A book written by people who said that god told them himself? Which book? Because god told a lot of people who wrote a lot of books about what god told them different things. And if god told you that himself, why didn't he tell me himself? Is god too good to talk to atheists, especially considering, by your own beliefs, that we need to be spoken to by him more than anyone else in society? You will of course pardon me if I maintain that this is nonsense.
posted by Farengast at 4:28 PM on December 11, 2005
Did he tell you that himself? Or do you just think that because you read it in a book? A book written by people who said that god told them himself? Which book? Because god told a lot of people who wrote a lot of books about what god told them different things. And if god told you that himself, why didn't he tell me himself? Is god too good to talk to atheists, especially considering, by your own beliefs, that we need to be spoken to by him more than anyone else in society? You will of course pardon me if I maintain that this is nonsense.
posted by Farengast at 4:28 PM on December 11, 2005
Artifice, has it occurred to you that perhaps it's more a case that Jesus was following an essentially liberal and leftist code of morals?
"Liberal" and "leftist" are modern terms. My thesis is that modern people in the West who fall into those classifications have, to a significant degree, inherited their values from Christianity.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:31 PM on December 11, 2005
"Liberal" and "leftist" are modern terms. My thesis is that modern people in the West who fall into those classifications have, to a significant degree, inherited their values from Christianity.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:31 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia, are you a presuppositionalist?
(if he says yes don't bother responding to his posts because he believes he's right and you're wrong by definition)
posted by fleetmouse at 4:32 PM on December 11, 2005
(if he says yes don't bother responding to his posts because he believes he's right and you're wrong by definition)
posted by fleetmouse at 4:32 PM on December 11, 2005
Oh sorry, she not he.
posted by fleetmouse at 4:33 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by fleetmouse at 4:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Let's see-if you were to acknowledge God you would have to acknowledge how foolish you would have to be to make that statement.
Well, I don't, so I guess I'm off the hook for that one.
Think about it-saying that about a Being who had total power over your life to include throw you into Hell immediately-if He so chose. Anyhow your definition of evil seems to be that of crossing your own will-yet you call Him evil for having an alternate Will.
I think you hit the nail on the head, with regard to a useful definition of evil. When one person imposes his will on another, against the will of that other, that's evil. If I came over to your house right now, and at gunpoint forced you to stop watching TV, you would probably think I'm an evil person even if you agreed that you watch too much TV. So, yes, your God would be evil, for imposing His Will on me. He would be Evil. Eeevil.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Well, I don't, so I guess I'm off the hook for that one.
Think about it-saying that about a Being who had total power over your life to include throw you into Hell immediately-if He so chose. Anyhow your definition of evil seems to be that of crossing your own will-yet you call Him evil for having an alternate Will.
I think you hit the nail on the head, with regard to a useful definition of evil. When one person imposes his will on another, against the will of that other, that's evil. If I came over to your house right now, and at gunpoint forced you to stop watching TV, you would probably think I'm an evil person even if you agreed that you watch too much TV. So, yes, your God would be evil, for imposing His Will on me. He would be Evil. Eeevil.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:33 PM on December 11, 2005
But maybe you and your atheist friends could have me arrested and sent to a gulag for re-education via hard labor.
No. No they couldn't. Except maybe in... um... China... and that would be only if you skipped a couple payments. Everywhere else? It's the godly who rule.
There are many many places, right here and now, where blasphemy is punishable by death and it happens all the time.
The Believers out number the Un-believers by many orders of magnitude on this planet. Who do you think is more in danger?
(Generalizations suck.)
Ah-hah! Your OVER-generalizing about generalizations. Some generalizations work great. Unless you mean the generalizations you don't happen to like. Then I imagine those do suck. For you.
And I'm not an atheist.
posted by tkchrist at 4:34 PM on December 11, 2005
No. No they couldn't. Except maybe in... um... China... and that would be only if you skipped a couple payments. Everywhere else? It's the godly who rule.
There are many many places, right here and now, where blasphemy is punishable by death and it happens all the time.
The Believers out number the Un-believers by many orders of magnitude on this planet. Who do you think is more in danger?
(Generalizations suck.)
Ah-hah! Your OVER-generalizing about generalizations. Some generalizations work great. Unless you mean the generalizations you don't happen to like. Then I imagine those do suck. For you.
And I'm not an atheist.
posted by tkchrist at 4:34 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia's God is just that, Konolia's. She's entitled to Him of course, but asking her for a reasonable explanation of how she "knows" what she knows, is well, just unreasonable. In other words, reason does not enter into it.
Konolia, correct me if I am wrong.
posted by cbrody at 4:34 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia, correct me if I am wrong.
posted by cbrody at 4:34 PM on December 11, 2005
Curious post, albeit framed awfully.
None of this discussion is particularly useful without some working and agreed upon definition of God.
If one is considered an atheist if one doesn't believe in the "beared guy in a robe" version, then I'd be one.
But I'm not, and refer to God rather consistently both verbally and internally. It is merely my personal understanding of the Word that is different.
Not only that, but my internal conception gives me a great deal of strength and comfort when called upon for that purpose. It is a, IMHO, very useful thing to have.
Hence, many of these posts are, to me, crucifying a strawman, and not really worthy of direct comment.
So, umm, there!
posted by wah at 4:35 PM on December 11, 2005
None of this discussion is particularly useful without some working and agreed upon definition of God.
If one is considered an atheist if one doesn't believe in the "beared guy in a robe" version, then I'd be one.
But I'm not, and refer to God rather consistently both verbally and internally. It is merely my personal understanding of the Word that is different.
Not only that, but my internal conception gives me a great deal of strength and comfort when called upon for that purpose. It is a, IMHO, very useful thing to have.
Hence, many of these posts are, to me, crucifying a strawman, and not really worthy of direct comment.
So, umm, there!
posted by wah at 4:35 PM on December 11, 2005
Is god too good to talk to atheists, especially considering, by your own beliefs, that we need to be spoken to by him more than anyone else in society?
Ah, but you wouldn't believe it was Him if He did.
As to me, right this very minute I am studying for my final in Theology 101 which is tomorrow night. Interestingly enough the doctrine of sin will be part of the test. (Metafilter on one screen, original sin on the other...computer multitasking at its finest.)
posted by konolia at 4:36 PM on December 11, 2005
Ah, but you wouldn't believe it was Him if He did.
As to me, right this very minute I am studying for my final in Theology 101 which is tomorrow night. Interestingly enough the doctrine of sin will be part of the test. (Metafilter on one screen, original sin on the other...computer multitasking at its finest.)
posted by konolia at 4:36 PM on December 11, 2005
Artifice, you are loosing touch with reality at an alarming pace here, pal. Most countries, regardless of religious history have a similar set of core laws. Don't kill, don't steal, don't do naughty things with other people's wives etc. To say that this is due to Christian influences is to deeply misunderstand human history. Considering especially the fact that the Catholic church has spent more time preaching hatred than love for most of its history, yet most catholics are good people, they are not really prone to hatred. I don't know any catholics who hate gay people, even though the church tells them they ought to. So how can you claim Christian influence when devout christians will disobey their own church to maintain what is right to them? To think that people killed each other, and stole from each other without punishment until Christ came along and said it was bad? Maybe you should look into a guy named Hammurabi, a king of babylon. Christianity definitely didn't influence his ideas, and check out the laws he came up with, they will look mighty familiar. Of course modern liberalism "appears" to originate in christian ideology, but that is simply because christian ideology originates in people's innate sense of what is decent, which originiates in empathy, the feeling that other people hurt when we harm them. Don't mistake correlation with causality. Christianity has nothing to do with root causes of our basic notions of right and wrong, else they couldn't have been there before Christ.
posted by Farengast at 4:43 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 4:43 PM on December 11, 2005
"Liberal" and "leftist" are modern terms.
Yes, they are, but they are not particularly modern ideas. They certainly predate Jesus. The Buddha preached much the same thing 500 years earlier, and he inherited many of his ideas from Hindu notions that were even older.
Similar ideas have been independently generated in other cultures too, such as Taoism, Bon, and various Native American practices. The Mabinogion also predates Christianity and gives what appear to be quite "modern", liberal, lefty ideas about protection of the poor, service to others, etc.
Liberal, lefty ideas are not new, and nor did Jesus invent them. They are as old as the first caveman who shared his chunk of woolly mammoth with a hungry stranger.
posted by cleardawn at 4:45 PM on December 11, 2005
Yes, they are, but they are not particularly modern ideas. They certainly predate Jesus. The Buddha preached much the same thing 500 years earlier, and he inherited many of his ideas from Hindu notions that were even older.
Similar ideas have been independently generated in other cultures too, such as Taoism, Bon, and various Native American practices. The Mabinogion also predates Christianity and gives what appear to be quite "modern", liberal, lefty ideas about protection of the poor, service to others, etc.
Liberal, lefty ideas are not new, and nor did Jesus invent them. They are as old as the first caveman who shared his chunk of woolly mammoth with a hungry stranger.
posted by cleardawn at 4:45 PM on December 11, 2005
So, yes, your God would be evil, for imposing His Will on me. He would be Evil. Eeevil.
Unfortunately the fact that God made you and the universe you rode in on- and is infinitely bigger and mightier to boot-gives Him the right to determine what evil is. And evil is indeed anything that transgresses His will by definition. Since on the other hand you are NOT God, not omnipotent, not omnipresent, not immanent, not eternal, etc etc.....well, you get the drift. We, being the "potter's clay" so to speak, don't get to talk back to the Potter.
He's God, He's Lord, He's King, He's the Big Boss.
posted by konolia at 4:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Unfortunately the fact that God made you and the universe you rode in on- and is infinitely bigger and mightier to boot-gives Him the right to determine what evil is. And evil is indeed anything that transgresses His will by definition. Since on the other hand you are NOT God, not omnipotent, not omnipresent, not immanent, not eternal, etc etc.....well, you get the drift. We, being the "potter's clay" so to speak, don't get to talk back to the Potter.
He's God, He's Lord, He's King, He's the Big Boss.
posted by konolia at 4:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Ah, but you wouldn't believe it was Him if He did.
I would think that one such as god could make a convincing exposition, even to one such as me. Wouldn't be much of a god if he couldn't impress me.
And of course the "you only hear him if you have faith" argument is so devoid of any real logic or consistancy that it is laughable. It is worse than a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's a self-fulfilling logic. Which is easily understood as not logical at all, but more so it is a dangerous way to think. Because you can justify ANYTHING with thinking like that. "God says we should knock down the WTC. But he only says it to people who have faith" i.e. people who already want to knock down the WTC."
posted by Farengast at 4:52 PM on December 11, 2005
I would think that one such as god could make a convincing exposition, even to one such as me. Wouldn't be much of a god if he couldn't impress me.
And of course the "you only hear him if you have faith" argument is so devoid of any real logic or consistancy that it is laughable. It is worse than a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's a self-fulfilling logic. Which is easily understood as not logical at all, but more so it is a dangerous way to think. Because you can justify ANYTHING with thinking like that. "God says we should knock down the WTC. But he only says it to people who have faith" i.e. people who already want to knock down the WTC."
posted by Farengast at 4:52 PM on December 11, 2005
« Older All over one guy getting beat up, what a bunch of... | British Oil Depot Fire Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:54 PM on December 11, 2005