Skip to comments.Worst Book of the Year [TNR - The Answers, on "The Atheist's Guide to Reality"]
Posted on 01/04/2012 6:25:54 PM PST by MeNeFrego
"...What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you dont like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes. What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Dont look for it; it will find you when you need it. Does history have any meaning or purpose?Its full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
I take this cutting-edge wisdom from the worst book of the year, a shallow and supercilious thing called The Atheists Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, by Alex Rosenberg, a philosopher of science at Duke University. The book is a catechism for people who believe they have emancipated themselves from catechisms. The faith that it dogmatically expounds is scientism. It is a fine example of how the religion of science can turn an intelligent man into a fool....
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
New word, look it up:
sac·er·do·tal [sas-er-doht-l] Show IPA adjective of priests; priestly. Origin: 13501400; Middle English < Latin sacerdōtālis, equivalent to sacerdōt- (stem of sacerdōs ) priest + -ālis -al1
Penny: And you know about that stuff?
Sheldon Cooper: [patronizing] Penny - Im a physicist. I have a working knowledge of the entire universe and everything it contains.
Penny: Whos Radiohead?
Sheldon Cooper: [with facial tic] I have a working knowledge of the IMPORTANT things in the universe.
The scientism as advocated here isn’t even for science’s sake, but a wrapper for a “hedonic imperative.” Double blech.
You can read it in the restaurant at the end of the universe.
If that is what the book really says, I would say it is quite good because it doesn’t try to obfuscate, as Dawkins and others do, about the logical consequences of atheism (at least of the metaphysical naturalist variety).
The headline is so silly, atheists do not live in reality.
My cult has “smacking atheists in the head with baseball bats” as a sacrament.
You can’t even join unless you’ve smacked one and had it witnessed.
*Originally a long form joke from my grad school days involving two fictitious gangsters, Rocco and Knuckles, who ran protection rackets on academics "Nice proof you got dere. It'd be a pity if something should happen to it. . .": "So Mr. Nietzche, I understand you hold dat what does not kill you makes you stronger. My colleague Knuckles believes he can provide an eloquent counter-argument by applying a ball peen hammer ta yous knees."
I’m an atheist and I think moral relativists like Alex Rosenberg are full of crap.
(Does this mean that no-one here is going to hit me with a bat?)
We used to ponder the thoughts of Martin Buber or Rabinadrath Tagore.. now we get this (forgive me) crap that seems to come from the mind of Herman Goering. Anyone with some basic philosophy knowledge could send this book to rest with the Titanic but that is not the solution, the New Atheists continue to vomit this gospel of nonsense hoping they drown us in it. They are the new inquisition (with my apologies to the original Inquisition for the comparison.)
Recently I asked the following question in one of those Internet forums: “Can someone explain how a large collection of inorganic molecules formed enough aminoacids to compose the map of the first self-reproductive cell, and please explain how said collection managed to invent the blueprint along with the functions necessary for survival and reproduction.” (I don’t remember the exact question but it was something to that effect) The answer from the illuminated atheist was more or less like this: “People that believe in God take the easy shortcut... etc. etc. I could answer your question but I would have to write a 5,000 page paper that you would not understand etc.” Now, I may be a fool but I speak several languages and I understand General Relativity. I am not bragging, just establishing some parameters for further use. That poor man tells me that he could explain the origin of life (???) but somehow he neglected to (a) publish his voluminous paper (b) execute the process and produce a synthetic cell in a lab. I am not greedy, a simple prokaryotes will do. Some believers like Lavoisier, Newton, Einstein, or LeMaitre are now a bunch of religious morons (producing lazy answers to complex problems) and our brilliant commentator gets labelled an “intellectual” by the simple device of not believing in God. Am I wrong or is it time to send some of these people some place far from the company of our children?
What if he can't, do you then stand ready? The Bible says, "... and the earth brought forth grass" ( at God's command. ) To me, this is naturalism, right there in Genesis. Take a walk.
Learn to read and understand what you read. Take a walk, breathe some fresh air, and learn to love your brethren as you were commanded to do from the beginning. God bless.
Probably no bats. But we could arrange having you get popped in the kiester with a low power bb-gun, if that would make you happy 8^')
We're here to help, you know?
Yet, every Dawkinist ought to have their face rubbed in this book.
No bat for you.
But you are a rather fitting target for prayer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.