|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Ultimate implications of not recognizing the sacredness of life (due to its connection with God ...)
Materialistic science's reductionist views cheapen the value of all forms of life ... |
Religion has often failed to show sacredness of life. This life will be my only one, I'm going to try and relax and enjoy my time here before I go back to where I was before, nowhere. That makes life all the more sacred to me.
Most religions view the universe in a very limited way. The mystery of the universe and life itself with the pursuit for understanding is for me vastly richer than the crap I was fed at school and church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Everything in this world - including all organized religions - gets corrupted in time. There are also various types of religions intended for people with different levels of understanding. I recommend the Vedic tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism/bhakti yoga for relatively intelligent people who appreciate a "far out" world view that's also compatible with the finest sentiments of other major faiths ...
"This life being the only one" is just a speculative, materialistic concept that ignores the science of the soul (given in Bhagavad-gita.) Even within this one lifetime, the body is always changing, but we sense ourseves to be the same person... Death means a more profound change of body, but we're essentially still the same person ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Everything in this world - including all organized religions - gets corrupted in time. |
So your Hitler Stalin attack on atheism was not just incorrect but pointless.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| There are also various types of religions intended for people with different levels of understanding. I recommend the Vedic tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnavism/bhakti yoga for relatively intelligent people who appreciate a "far out" world view that's also compatible with the finest sentiments of other major faiths ... |
Could do with a bit of stretching
| Rteacher wrote: |
| "This life being the only one" is just a speculative, materialistic concept that ignores the science of the soul (given in Bhagavad-gita.) Even within this one lifetime, the body is always changing, but we sense ourselves to be the same person... Death means a more profound change of body, but we're essentially still the same person ... |
Speculative, sure, so is your science of the soul. But my materialistic concept makes life all the more valuable, "Zoom, What was that? Your life. Do I get another one? No"-Basil Fawlty. If there is an afterlife "Bonus" but I wouldn't waste this life banking on it.
The body changes but so does the mind and even the personality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "There are many who believe there is a divine power behind the workings of the universe but who believe that that power does not take any special interest in us as individuals. |
Since you were responding to my post which was clearly talking about scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, why wouldn't I or anyone else assume you weren't talking about same? 
I was not addressing the NAS's beliefs, I was addressing that you altered the info by equating 'god' with 'personal god'. My pointing out that there are many (people) who believe in a god/supernatural power but do not believe in a personal god, was to show you that your substitution of terms makes a difference. Do you see the difference or not?
| Quote: |
| Third, who cares? Are we supposed to make all our important life-decisions based on what a bunch of scientists think about non-scientific issues? |
No. You said that, not me. I said that when it comes to the issue of believing in a supreme being (or not), I trust the conclusion that most of these guys have come to, that is, the gods that humans have created for themselves are NOT the final answer...
I didn't say that, I asked that. Is this your answer? That you trust the conclusion a group of experts come to about an issue that is quite outside their fields of expertise? Just curious.
| Quote: |
| By the way, we all know you're not an atheist. You have declared yorself to be a God because you ride a motorcycle. Or don't you believe in yourself? |
(This was not meant to be taken seriously)
I believe in Objectivism. Every human is a "god". Yes, even Jeffrey Dahmer. Furthermore, because I'm an atheist I can reject facets of Objectivism that I disagree with without fear of "burning in hellfire" for all eternity.
Jeffrey Dahmer a god? Who knew Soylent Green was ambrosia? 
| Quote: |
| I am pointing out that the author's points are not so good and that he isn't really arguing atheism vs. theism either. |
So, you are saying that atheists the world over have not been systematically demonized, particularly in the U.S.?
Huh? I'm saying that?
Disingenuous! And no, I'm not saying that this has not happened to religious folk as well. But this thread is ultimately not about religious folk, is it?
I'm not sure what it's about. I thought it was about an article we were all supposed to read. Were we not supposed to comment on the article?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I was not addressing the NAS's beliefs, I was addressing that you altered the info by equating 'god' with 'personal god'. My pointing out that there are many (people) who believe in a god/supernatural power but do not believe in a personal god, was to show you that your substitution of terms makes a difference. Do you see the difference or not? |
The fact that I did not assume that this is what you were referring to (people in general as opposed to NAS members) is a failure on your part to elucidate, not mine.
| Quote: |
| I didn't say that, I asked that. Is this your answer? That you trust the conclusion a group of experts come to about an issue that is quite outside their fields of expertise? Just curious. |
I've already made my position on this quite clear. Are you not reading all my posts? Educate yourself. To wit: scientists never come to any conclusions, they always leave open the possibility that they are wrong. That's why they formulate THEORIES, not ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Absolute truths are one of religion's trappings.
| Quote: |
| (This was not meant to be taken seriously) |
No sh*t?! That's a relief, because I thought it was the crux of your argument. 
| Quote: |
| Huh? I'm saying that? |
You said "the author's points are not so good". Thus worded, one must assume you mean ALL his points (since you didn't say "some of his points"). Since one of his points was that atheists have been systematically demonized, I must assume you think this is not a valid point. Of course, you would be wrong.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure what it's about. I thought it was about an article we were all supposed to read. Were we not supposed to comment on the article?
|
No, I'm just nipping a problem in the bud; that is, stopping people from saying things like "Well, Christians have been oppressed since day one", because this is not a thread about Christianity. If someone wants to talk about how this, that, or the other group has been bothered, they should make their own thread. This thread is to talk about ATHEISTS.
For every atheist asswipe that has rained down sh*t upon the earth there are at least a dozen religious ones. For instance, most Christians would like to erase the memory of Pope Alexander VI. Most Muslims would like to forget Saddam Hussein. Most Shintos would like to forget Hirohito. Most Buddhists would like to forget Pol Pot. Etc., etc., etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pol Pot was another atheistic communist who killed and tortured millions. (Also add "Chairman Mao" to that list ...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Pol Pot was another atheistic communist who killed and tortured millions. (Also add "Chairman Mao" to that list ...) |
Dude, wtf *beep* are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I was not addressing the NAS's beliefs, I was addressing that you altered the info by equating 'god' with 'personal god'. My pointing out that there are many (people) who believe in a god/supernatural power but do not believe in a personal god, was to show you that your substitution of terms makes a difference. Do you see the difference or not? |
The fact that I did not assume that this is what you were referring to (people in general as opposed to NAS members) is a failure on your part to elucidate, not mine.
If you say so. I was referring to people in general. There, consider yourself elucidated. The real question remains: (as you still have not dealt with it) are 'belief in a god' and 'belief in a personal god' interchangeable expressions/concepts?
| Quote: |
| I didn't say that, I asked that. Is this your answer? That you trust the conclusion a group of experts come to about an issue that is quite outside their fields of expertise? Just curious. |
I've already made my position on this quite clear. Are you not reading all my posts? Educate yourself. To wit: scientists never come to any conclusions, they always leave open the possibility that they are wrong.
I am reading your other posts. For example, this:
"I said that when it comes to the issue of believing in a supreme being (or not), I trust the conclusion that most of these guys have come to, that is, the gods that humans have created for themselves are NOT the final answer"
Yes, you've made your position quite clear. Scientists never come to conclusions and you trust the conclusions most of them have come to.
| Quote: |
| Huh? I'm saying that? |
You said "the author's points are not so good". Thus worded, one must assume you mean ALL his points (since you didn't say "some of his points"). Since one of his points was that atheists have been systematically demonized, I must assume you think this is not a valid point.
I was referring to his 10 points (myths) as the purpose of the article was to "debunk" certain "myths" about atheism. If we look at his little preamble though, I don't think he makes very good points there either. If, as you say, "one of his points was that atheists have been systematically demonized," I don't think he made that point too well. The "evidence" he uses is a poll about a hyothetical electoral situation, a 300-year old quote, and statistics showing that most people in the States never doubt the existence of God. What does this really prove? Now, perhaps atheists have been systematically demonized, but I don't think he makes that point too well.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure what it's about. I thought it was about an article we were all supposed to read. Were we not supposed to comment on the article?
|
No, I'm just nipping a problem in the bud; that is, stopping people from saying things like "Well, Christians have been oppressed since day one", because this is not a thread about Christianity. If someone wants to talk about how this, that, or the other group has been bothered, they should make their own thread. This thread is to talk about ATHEISTS.
You're nipping a problem I have seen no signs of. Please show me where I have come anywhere close to making the arguments you imagined would be made. I have not mentioned the targeting of other groups. I have not argued for theism or against atheism either. I have argued only that the points made in the article are not very good/strong. This thread is about that article. This thread started with your command, "Now I'm telling you to read Sam Harris." Well, I did. And I don't think he makes very good points. That doesn't mean I think good points can't be made on the subject. I just don't think he makes them (at least not in this article).
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes, you've made your position quite clear. Scientists never come to conclusions and you trust the conclusions most of them have come to. |
Ahh, you thought you had me there. That must have felt good.
They have decided (concluded, if you will) that for themselves, none of the gods that have been invented by man suffice. Me too. Like them, until I see the evidence I'm not buying it. That does not imply that they/I do not leave open the possibility that god exists. Perhaps I should have elucidated better.
| Quote: |
The "evidence" he uses is a poll about a hyothetical electoral situation, a 300-year old quote, and statistics showing that most people in the States never doubt the existence of God. What does this really prove? Now, perhaps atheists have been systematically demonized, but I don't think he makes that point too well.
|
"According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president."
How is this hypothetical? People have said "This is the deal", so that's the deal. When people say "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton", they ususally mean they won't vote for Hillary Clinton. When people say "I won't vote for a black" they mean it. It proves that in the eyes of Americans, something is patently undesirable about atheists (read: demonized). The 300 year old quote was used to illustrate the fact that prejudice against atheism and atheists is nothing new. I thought it was well chosen.
| Quote: |
| You're nipping a problem I have seen no signs of. Please show me where I have come anywhere close to making the arguments you imagined would be made |
Nipping something in the bud means stopping it before it ever becomes a reality. I'm telling people what NOT to do/start on this thread. Any reason why I shouldn't?
| Quote: |
| If you say so. I was referring to people in general. There, consider yourself elucidated. The real question remains: (as you still have not dealt with it) are 'belief in a god' and 'belief in a personal god' interchangeable expressions/concepts? |
Well, I guess as long as YOU know what you're talking about, it doesn't matter if the rest of us get it.
As for your question...does it matter? God, personal god, your own personal Jesus? You're nit-picking. I'm quite sure that if you asked the NAS members point blank if they believed in "god", they would say "Anything is possible". Atheists (and atheist scientists) leave open the possibility that some sort of "universal force" or "god" exists, but they certainly do not believe in any concept of god as developed by humanity. At least, not yet. Always a chance someone got it right. Highly doubtful, but always a chance. Satisfied?
Last edited by mack the knife on Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:01 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| Pol Pot was another atheistic communist who killed and tortured millions. (Also add "Chairman Mao" to that list ...) |
Yeah and that bad guy from the new bond film is another atheist, was Darth Vader an atheist? I think he was. Bad man. Dr Evil? Lex Luther? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"In early 1964, Pol Pot convinced the Vietnamese to help the Cambodian Communists set up their own base camp. The central committee of the party met later that year and issued a declaration calling for armed struggle. The declaration also emphasized the idea of "self-reliance" in the sense of extreme Cambodian nationalism. In the border camps, the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was gradually developed. The party, breaking with Marxism, declared rural peasant farmers to be the true working class proletarian and the lifeblood of the revolution. This is in some sense explained by the fact that none of the central committee were in any sense "working class". All of them had grown up in a feudal peasant society. The party adapted elements of Therawada Buddhism to justify their non-standard communism."
Ergo, Buddhists would like to forget him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
The "evidence" he uses is a poll about a hyothetical electoral situation, a 300-year old quote, and statistics showing that most people in the States never doubt the existence of God. What does this really prove? Now, perhaps atheists have been systematically demonized, but I don't think he makes that point too well.
|
"According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president."
How is this hypothetical? People have said "This is the deal", so that's the deal. When people say "I won't vote for Hillary Clinton", they ususally mean they won't vote for Hillary Clinton. When people say "I won't vote for a black" they mean it. It proves that in the eyes of Americans, something is patently undesirable about atheists (read: demonized).
The fact that some people wouldn't vote for an atheist does not mean they have been demonized. Some people wouldn't vote for an unmarried person, some wouldn't vote for an 80-year old, some wouldn't vote for a woman. That may reveal that people have certain biases, but that does not mean that the above groups have been demonized.
"American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de�mon�ize (dē'mə-nīz') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. de�mon�ized, de�mon�iz�ing, de�mon�iz�es
To turn into or as if into a demon.
To possess by or as if by a demon.
To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy. "
I'm guessing we're dealing with definition three. Who is representing atheists as evil or diabolic? I haven't recieved the pamphlet yet. Perhaps, people tend to vote for people they feel would be more like-minded to themselves and as most people in the States are theists, they would prefer a theistic president. Now, that may be unfair and one could make reasonable arguments that when it comes to running the government, being a theist or atheist is of no import whatsoever, and therefore, a theist should have no qualms about voting for an atheist. However, one cannot conclude that the reason an overwhelmingly theistic electorate wouldn't prefer to vote for an atheist is because atheists have been demonized - actively, purposefully portrayed by some anti-atheist group as evil.
The wording in the poll is a bit odd, too. Would you vote for an "otherwise qualified atheist?" Why is the word, "otherwise" in there? It implies that atheism is a demerit. Why not simpy ask, "would you vote for a qualified atheist?" The question leads people. "Otherwise - in other respects: an otherwise logical mind. " (American Heritage Dictionary). So the question is saying, "would you vote for an atheistic candidate who is qualified in other respects?" implying that he is not qualified in the respect that he is an atheist. This is a leading question in my opinion. Perhaps you disagree. But I still don't see how some people not wishing to vote for atheist proves that atheists have been demonized.
| Quote: |
| You're nipping a problem I have seen no signs of. Please show me where I have come anywhere close to making the arguments you imagined would be made |
Nipping something in the bud means stopping it before it ever becomes a reality. I'm telling people what NOT to do/start on this thread. Any reason why I shouldn't?
You're thinking of a pre-emptive strike. You can't nip something in the bud until there is a bud to nip.
"Meaning
Put a stop to something while it is still in its early development. " -(phrases.org)
| Quote: |
| The real question remains: (as you still have not dealt with it) are 'belief in a god' and 'belief in a personal god' interchangeable expressions/concepts? |
As for your question...does it matter? God, personal god, your own personal Jesus? You're nit-picking. I'm quite sure that if you asked the NAS members point blank if they believed in "god", they would say "Anything is possible". Atheists (and atheist scientists) leave open the possibility that some sort of "universal force" or "god" exists, but they certainly do not believe in any concept of god as developed by humanity. At least, not yet. Always a chance someone got it right. Highly doubtful, but always a chance. Satisfied?
[I'm always satisfied. What others believe or allow for does figure into my state of contentedness. However, I hope you are not serious in stating that diferentiating between "god" and "personal god" is nit-picking. Someone who espouses the merits of science so strongly should be more precise. Here is a quote from the head of the NAS:
"Religion was an unavoidable subject at the news conference at which the report was released. Eminent panelists reiterated that most religions have no conflict with evolution and that many scientists are religious. "There are many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists," offered NAS president Bruce Alberts. Of course, he did not claim that these "very religious" NAS members believed in a God as defined in Leuba's survey--traditional Jewish, Christian or Muslim theism, that is--but that would have been a natural interpretation of his statement by many in the general public. "
Here is a link to the report that contains that quote. it is really quite interesting and covers a lot of related stuff in brief manner.http://grove.ufl.edu/~dmorgan/Articles/religion-sci/Scientists%20and%20Religion%20in%20America.htm |
[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, one cannot conclude that the reason an overwhelmingly theistic electorate wouldn't prefer to vote for an atheist is because atheists have been demonized - actively, purposefully portrayed by some anti-atheist group as evil. |
Why not?
| Quote: |
| The fact that some people wouldn't vote for an atheist does not mean they have been demonized |
Sure it does. Let's get real. It means that people have been lead to believe by their parents, pastors, and teachers, whoever, that atheists are incapable (morally or for whatever reason) of assuming the role of president. Don't play dumb, when you're clearly smarter than that.
| Quote: |
| I'm guessing we're dealing with definition three. Who is representing atheists as evil or diabolic? I haven't recieved the pamphlet yet. |
There is no pamphlet. Again, it's your parents, pastors, rabbis, the media, etc. that have systematically demonzied atheists. Don't pretend like you haven't seen it. You haven't been living in a shell, unless you're from an Eskimo village.
| Quote: |
| You're thinking of a pre-emptive strike. You can't nip something in the bud until there is a bud to nip. |
Thank you, Captain Persnickity.
| Quote: |
| However, I hope you are not serious in stating that diferentiating between "god" and "personal god" is nit-picking. |
NO. You're just missing the point. Most of the members of the NAS do not believe in "god", period, because no evidence whatsoever of "god's" existence exists. Ultimately, good science depends on hard evidence. There is no hard evidence whatsoever for the existence of "god"; ergo, good scientists should not believe in god, personal or otherwise, but they should leave open the possibility that some sort of "force" or "deity" exists. Yes, they must even consider the possibility that space aliens are running the show.
| Quote: |
| There are many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people |
Many is another way of saying "The five guys I had over for dinner last night."
But we digress. The crux of your argument is that you do not agree with the 10 myths that Harris has presented, so let's look more closely at those:
1) Life is meaningless...
Atheists believe they get one shot at this deal, so they live life to the fullest. Well, many of them probably do, and many do not. His point is that religious folk find meaning in their life primarily through their relationship with god, buddha, whatever. Since atheist don't share these beliefs, most people assume that atheists "have nothing to live for" and therefore must find life "meaningless". If I had a dollar for every person who has asked me "So why don't you just kill yourself if you don't believe in God?".... Many non-atheists think atheists lives are meaningless. True.
2) Atheists are responsible for the greatest crimes...
I've already shown this to be nonsense. There are far more religious people on earth than atheists; ergo, it follows that there have always been far more naughty religious folk than naughty atheists.
3) Atheism is dogmatic...
I've shown this to be nonsense. Good scientists must always leave open the possibility that some truths exist outside of their realm of comprehension. Therefore, all good scientists who are atheists should at least entertain the idea that a "supreme being" or "force" other than those we know of lords it over us. Of course, that only covers scientists, but you can't assume that non-scientific minds dismiss the idea of god out of hand.
4) The universe came into being...
See above.
5) Atheism has no connection to science...
I must admit that this one seems disingenuous. I know plenty of religious-minded science-types. One does not preclude the other, although I do agree that science tends to "erode, rather than support religion." Take Richard Dawkins wildly popular work, for instance.
6) Atheists are arrogant...
Whatever. Some are, some aren't. This one is a bit nonsensical.
7) Atheists and spiritual experiences...
I suppose some atheists hear a lot of nonsense from religious or "spiritual" types about how they are "cold" or "empty" or whatever. It hasn't been my problem, but I know for a fact that I have experienced ecstasy, love, rapture, and awe, if those indeed define "spiritual" experiences.
8. Atheists believe nothing beyond...
See above (#3)
9) Atheists ignore religions' benefits...
Of course we don't. We just believe that living a life without believing in a bunch of supernatural mumbo-jumbo is preferable. As I mentioned before, I (and many/most atheists see many good aspects of religious philosophy. For instance "Don't rape your neighbor's wife" pretty much holds up without god in the picture, no?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality...
If this were true, then human beings would not be alive today. We would have killed each other off millions of years ago (back before there was any concept of religion or god). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Quote: |
| However, one cannot conclude that the reason an overwhelmingly theistic electorate wouldn't prefer to vote for an atheist is because atheists have been demonized - actively, purposefully portrayed by some anti-atheist group as evil. |
Why not?
Because we only know that many theists don't prefer to vote for an atheist. We don't know why. At least not from that poll used in the article.
I'll bet 80% or so of people would not willingly have sexual relations with someone of their own gender. That does not mean that all or even most of those 80% think homosexuality is evil. They may just prefer a heterosexual lifestyle. We can't draw any conclusions as to what they think about homosexuals.
| Quote: |
| The fact that some people wouldn't vote for an atheist does not mean they have been demonized |
Sure it does. Let's get real. It means that people have been lead to believe by their parents, pastors, and teachers, whoever, that atheists are incapable (morally or for whatever reason) of assuming the role of president. Don't play dumb, when you're clearly smarter than that.
Rather than the "we all know it's true" argument, I'd really like to see proof of this. Hey, it may be out there, but atheists were not demonized to me by any of my pastors or teachers or by my parents. Demonize is a pretty strong term to me. What would you consider to be "demonizing." For example, would a pastor saying that atheism is a dangerous ideology be an example of atheists being demonized?
| Quote: |
| There are many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people |
Many is another way of saying "The five guys I had over for dinner last night."
This is how you explain away what he said? By putting words in his mouth? So, the president of the NAS, a group you seem to respect and even trust, was being disingenuous? Stretching the truth? Lying?
But we digress. The crux of your argument is that you do not agree with the 10 myths that Harris has presented, so let's look more closely at those:
Actually, if I did not agree with the 10 myths Harris has presented, I would be like Harris. He disagrees with those myths. That is why he calls them myths and seeks to "deflate" them. I argued that he didn't make his intended points very well. Here is a direct quote of myself in a previous post, "...I don't think he makes very good points. That doesn't mean I think good points can't be made on the subject. I just don't think he makes them (at least not in this article).
1) Life is meaningless...
I feel his first "myth" is a straw man. In the article the myth was, "Atheists believe that life is meaningless." I've never met anyone who thought that. Many theists think that the lives of atheists are void of meaning, but that does not mean they think that atheists think their lives are void of meaning. Similarly, many atheists think that organized religion, church services, etc. are meaningless. But they probably do not think that the people who participate in these things think they are meaningless.
2) Atheists are responsible for the greatest crimes...
I've already shown this to be nonsense. There are far more religious people on earth than atheists; ergo, it follows that there have always been far more naughty religious folk than naughty atheists.
As I mentioned earlier, I'm not even sure why attacks this "myth," but by so doing he gets tangled up in rhetoric confusing theism/atheism with dogmatism/reason. He ends up arguing that dogmatism is what is bad and that atheists can be dogmatic as well. I think this "myth" is indeed bustable, but I don't think he did it.
3) Atheism is dogmatic...
I've shown this to be nonsense. Good scientists must always leave open the possibility that some truths exist outside of their realm of comprehension. Therefore, all good scientists who are atheists should at least entertain the idea that a "supreme being" or "force" other than those we know of lords it over us. Of course, that only covers scientists, but you can't assume that non-scientific minds dismiss the idea of god out of hand.
What about atheists who are not scientists? Anway, that is beside the point because that seems to be your point, not his. His point on this was damaged by the things he said regarding myth number two where he argued that atheistic regimes were being too dogmatic. Also, I don't find the quote he used to be very effective. Rejecting all gods/higher powers is not like rejecting some gods/higher powers. It's one thing to choose one woman and foresake all others and it's quite another thing to reject all women. It reminds me of "A Hunger Artist" in which the title character explains that he doesn't eat because he never found a food he enjoyed. By the way, that is a great short story. I think you'd like it, too.
4) The universe came into being...
Actually, the myth was, "Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance."
He didn't too badly with this one. I agree with his basic point made here: "Although we don�t know precisely how the Earth�s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection." However, he pretty much dodges the issues of how the universe arose or life began. "No one knows why the universe came into being." Perhaps, but most theists (and here is where the "god" "personal god" difference would show up as there are many who believe God started it all and after that has been uninvolved) believe the universe was created. If atheists do not believe this and also do not believe it arose by chance, then what do they believe? I wish he would have mentioned some alternatives. Same goes for life. Evolution/adaptation can eplain that animals and plants are not the way they are by chance alone, but rather have adapted purposefully to their environments. But evolution does not cover how life began. If it wasn't created purposefully by a higher being and it didn't come about by chance, what other alternative is there? He doesn't offer one.
5) Atheism has no connection to science...
This "myth" is a joke. In his own preamble he says, "Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse." I think almost everyone acknowledges that atheism has a rather strong connection to science. He said so too at the onset. Now, he will debunk the "myth" that "atheism has no connection to science"??? This myth is itself mythical. No one holds to this myth.
6) Atheists are arrogant...
Again, I'm not sure many hold to this "myth" and he doesn't even attempt to demonstrate that people do. He's "deflating myths" that he himself inflated. And even then he doesn't do such a good job. He speaks only of scientists as if "scientist" and "atheist" are synonyms.
7) Atheists and spiritual experiences...
I won't say much about this one. I guess it all depends on what "spiritual" means.
8. Atheists believe nothing beyond...
Again, I don't think this "myth" really exists.
9) Atheists ignore religions' benefits...
Of course we don't. We just believe that living a life without believing in a bunch of supernatural mumbo-jumbo is preferable. As I mentioned before, I (and many/most atheists see many good aspects of religious philosophy. For instance "Don't rape your neighbor's wife" pretty much holds up without god in the picture, no?
Your debunking of this "myth" is much better than his. Rather than arguing that atheists do not ignore the benefits of religion, he goes off on how religion probably isn't very beneficial, almost legitimizing the myth he was supposed to debunk.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality...
If this were true, then human beings would not be alive today. We would have killed each other off millions of years ago (back before there was any concept of religion or god).
I'm not sure how to respond to that. Do we know when people had no concept of religion or god? If there was such a time, perhaps people had no concept of morals either. How can we know? Many suggest that religion was devised in order to make people behave. As Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, we would have to invent him." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoidberg
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere too hot for my delicate marine constitution
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance."
I don't understand how this can be construed as a negative belief. Does it really matter if existence is planned or random. At the end of the day, the universe exists. Isn't that enough.
And, existence by chance is just as positive as existence by a creator. That the universe exists by chance makes it something special, that, if some elements had been missing, might not exist at all.
The only way I can see it being seen as a negative belief is that it negates the role of god. But, being a belief held by atheists in the first place, isn't that to be expected.
And based on flakfizer and mack the knife's interchange, I think this guy may need to rewrite his article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
