Posted on 03/30/2007 6:20:58 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Atheists Split Over Message By JAY LINDSAY
BOSTON -
Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.
Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."
Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.
The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.
Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.
Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy - part of the school's chaplaincy corps - Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.
"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."
In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.
The celebration of a "New Humanism" will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement, and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.
Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."
The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems, Wilson said.
"I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," he said.
Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there's room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism. "I don't think everyone needs to take as uncompromising a stance as I have against faith," he said.
But, he added, an intellectual intolerance of people who strongly believe things on bad evidence is just "basic human sanity."
"We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while," he said in e-mailed comments.
Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.
"Likewise with the God of Abraham," he said. "There is nothing 'fundamentalist' about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible."
Some of the participants in Harvard's celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists' tone.
Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and "far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews."
"It's only the sense that religion deserves special respect - the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against - that people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion," Pinker said in e-mailed comments.
Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment. He has questioned whether teaching children they could go to hell is worse in the long term than sexually abusing them, and compares the evidence of God to evidence for unicorns, fairies and a "Flying Spaghetti Monster." His attempt to win converts is clear in "The God Delusion," when he writes of his hope that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."
A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.
Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can't be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.
Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition of America, sees a growing public acceptance of people who don't believe in God, pointing to California U.S. Rep. Pete Stark's statement this month that he doesn't believe in a supreme being. Stark is the first congressman to acknowledge being an atheist.
As more prominent people such as Stark publicly acknowledge they don't believe in God, "I think it will make it more palatable," Brown said.
But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away.
"The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies," he said. "The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them."
--
It seems to me that atheists make "life" and "evolution" into God.
He didn't create Himself. He existed always.
You're saying that it's impossible for the universe to have things of advanced structure randomly, but you believe that a creator has/had advanced structure-- far more advanced than anything we are aware of, if you're right-- randomly and out of nothing. Human DNA's existence is much more probable than God DNA (or whatever is his structure).
Again. It's a mystery. But that mystery is made evident to us in the advanced order of the universe. Even randomness begs for a mover. There has to be a first mover. Even if someone says, "physics is the mover" - well, the laws of physics didn't come into being on their own. It's inescapable. Every progression goes back to a first mover. That first mover is the Supreme Being, and no matter how hard one tries, He can't be erased from the equation because we can't wrap our minds around His eternal existence.
Basic golden rule morality is necessary for creating a society (keeping the social contract) and it's actually a system that is beneficial to the person and not just to others-- as it's sort of an insurance policy (be good to others, treat them the way you want to be treated in case you need to be treated nicely because you're in a bind). It's symbiotic. These relationships are found in nature, and those organisms don't believe in God.
Being kind to your neighbor and loving your enemy is found in nature? What about the food chain?
My point was that people want to believe that bad people will be tortured forever, but the reason for believing that is because of a desire and not reason or any facts.
Then you're saying there is no order in the universe at all. If you agree that there is order in the universe, then you must believe that there is justice, since justice is what constantly maintains order. That's all the reason necessary.
The universe doesn't owe us justice or anything. In fact, the evidence suggests that since the known world operates in such a way that things we wished wouldn't happen, do in fact happen, that we should not assume that things are different in some other life created by the same entity.
The universe owes it to itself. Since we are part of that universe, we are subjected to that justice. The world acts in a certain way because of our free will decisions to disrupt order and justice - as nations and as individuals.
the universe and the Earth and humans have many flaws
Not when they act as they are rightfully ordered to. The planets obey the laws of nature, which are put into motion by the perfect will of God. Man chooses not to do the will of God - chooses to disrupt the order. God will not stop man from doing so, and justice dictates that comfort be replaced with natural suffering (the effect of disorder manifested internally or externally) to make amends.
People are just unhappy with the truth sometimes.
Because the truth often impedes our selfish aims.
What I meant is that, like the kid who believes in Santa Claus because he wants the presents on Christmas morning (which is a reason for belief based on selfishness and not on reason or evidence), the same applies to hope.
You're comparing the fantastic, refutable belief of a child not having the developed reason of an adult, to thousands of years of the greatest minds the earth has known who all affirm and believe in a Supreme Being?
Hope is something that makes us feel good, like a drug.
But how does that refute the existence of God? Hope, when rightly ordered, hopes for the will of God, whether it brings wealth, poverty, health, sickness, good times, or bad. Rightly ordered hope is denial of self. Christianity is the answer to millenia of human beings hoping only for their own comfort. If Christianity were an approval of the human condition, it would be a farce. The human condition comes as a result of our desire to destroy order for our own perceived benefit (homosexuality, divorce, gluttony, abortion, greed, etc.)
If God wanted Jessica dead, he could have used a softer touch.
God didn't want her dead. The free will of humanity made it possible. The free will of those who constructed the justice system. The free will of those who ignored the killer in their midst. Not Jessica's free will - but the society that, if rightly ordered, would have protected her.
Since this statement cannot in any way be proven, are you asking us to take it on faith?
The establishment of a Supreme Being precedes your accusation that there is not, going back thousands upon thousands of years.
1 + 1 does not equal 2. Prove to me that it does, then prove to me that the number "2" is the correctly applied name for the result of 1 + 1.
Existence is, and always has been. There is no creation, only change and transformation.
Then how do you explain motion? Motion doesn't create energy. It receives energy from its mover. If there's no first mover, there's no energy. If there's no movement, there's no time. There can be no change or movement (time) without an external force that sets it in motion.
Nothing is not a possible state of existence globally
Which is why before the universe was created by God, there was void. Since God is not a corporeal being, void is not evidence against the eternal existence of the first mover.
There is no transitive closure to that sequence of questions and answers--which is why reality must be eternal.
Reality is limited only to what man can sense or reason? Wow. Is gravity a reality?
You think Jessica, a smart 9 year old girl, wasn't smart enough to see that God did as good of a job of protecting her and saving her as her purple dolphin stuffed animal and that the Bible verses that she was very good at memorizing (she had actually returned from Church only hours before being abducted) weren't binding promises and that belief in God was no different from her at-one-time belief in Santa years earlier? Because if she instead decided that her abduction, rape, and gruesome murder was just her fault somehow or was required because God needed it to happen and he couldn't accomplish his goals some other way, that is really supremely tragic.
All mass is energy. Mass is just a measure of some configuration of energy. Nothing can be at rest. That is an approximation used in classical physics. The lowest energy state of anything is the ground state, which is an energy configuraiton in constant motion.
A living thing is a machine composed of matter. It's the properties, of the particles hte machine is composed of that results in the capacities of the being. IOWs it's the physics that provide for the machinery of life. Living things move, because of the coordinated interactions of their components.
" The chemical composition of a recently dead person and a person about to die is identical"
No. The chemical composition if both are different. A living organism has a composition that provides the ability to maintain a roughly equilibrium composition of energy stores, derived from foods made available by the energy of sunlight. When a living organism is diseased, or dead, maintaining that roughly equilibrium composition becomes, or has become impossible. Once the machine's broken in such a way, the effect is irreversible.
You're asking me to take that on faith, not proof. You're painting a picture with zero evidence except what you project into it.
And since there is no tangible proof that she was even concerned for her own life at that point, I will propose that she, in fact, was not worried at all, and declare that I am correct.
Reminds me of the story of the dyslexic atheist with insomnia. Used to lie awake all night wondering if there really was a dog.
No. John 19:12 says Pilot tried to set Jesus free. He was intimidated by the Jews who posed the threat to him. Pilot turned the matter over to the crowds controlled by the guardians of doctrine.
"He offended everybody in sight"
No He did not. Note the crowds that had gathered on Palm Sunday. Those were crowds that recognized Him of their own free will. Those folks were present during His passion, crucifiction, and after His resurection.
Hey all you athiests, when you can answer what the "first mover" was.... then you can claim logic backs your stand.... until then.. doesn't matter if you are militant or not... you do not hold the "intellectual and scientific" high ground no matter how much you think you do.
You are welcome to believe there is no God... my only question to you is simply this....
Since we know nothing changes or moves without being acted on by an outside force, and all change is the result of external force...
What caused the first movement?
You see those who believe in God ad nothing more than mentally weak or crutch.. I see those who claim to "logically" conclude there is no God either dishonest with themselves, or just haven't thought enough about the above question.
Atheists must defend their positions, so it is necessary for them to create a certain type of "religion" around the fact that they have no religion as it is commonly understood.
Bafflin' ain't it?
"Atheists are a screwed up, obnoxious, in-your-face bunch."
I could say the same thing about the religious, or at least a minority of them. Same as with atheists - most are like me and have no particular interest in disabusing anyone else of their particular beliefs. I don't really care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't threaten my well-being, or require something from me.
In fact, as your post shows, the religious regularly display a complete lack of respect for the beliefs (or lack thereof) of atheists as atheists are accused of showing towards the religious.
You do not like them, but can you articulate why such things are evil?
Saying harming another is immorral, is not inately justifiable in a secular humaninstic world view. After all, moral reletavism can only exist with a secular human world view, which is why Communism and most totalitarian regimes require all religion either be completely destroyed, or may only exist as state run and owned.
Moral Relativism is the abject cornerstone of oppression, and it cannot exist with secular humanism being the world view, as secular humanism will always when push comes to shove allow the ends to justify the means, all that it takes is for the situation to be bad enough to justify it... since nothing is or can be absolute.
Yes, in the sense that, if you were afflicted with scurvy, vitamin C would be all you need.
The physics always was. This world appears as a phase transition in a physical existence that always was. There is no need, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that a prime mover is needed.
Nope... try again.
Currently science first mover fallback goes under current theory to the big bang..
Assuming this is true, you are still left with what caused the big bang?
You cannot get to where we are without tracing back how it got here, and science nor logic get you there.
An atheist is a know-it-all, and an agnostic is an uncertain know-it-all.
Cordially,
I just told you. To which you replied no. Do you understand what a phase transition is? THe appearance of the universe is the same as the appearance of a bubble in a pot of boiling water. What caused the bubble to appear?
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.