Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
“In describing their atheism as illiberal, I do not mean to imply that the new atheists are closet totalitarians. On the contrary, all of them understand themselves to be contributing to the defense of freedom against its most potent enemies, at home and abroad. Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions. Consider, for example, the sloppiness displayed by all of the authors in discussing their political aims. Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society–a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors…
The last thing America needs is a war of attrition between two mutually exclusive, absolute systems of belief. Yet this is precisely what the new atheists appear to crave. The task for the rest of us–committed to neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt–is to make certain that combatants on both sides of the theological divide fail to get their destructive way. And thereby to ensure that liberalism prevails.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I don’t care what your opinion is. . .
just do not try to tell me what my opinion should be.
rockhauler on December 1, 2007 at 10:04 PM
It still amazes me how angry and Borg-like atheists are. They are seriously almost as bad as a cult.
SouthernGent on December 1, 2007 at 10:11 PM
It still amazes me how angry and Borg-like atheists are. They are seriously almost as bad as a cult.
No, we aren’t.
I’d like for folks to start calling them anti-theists instead of atheists. It would separate them from us.
harrison on December 1, 2007 at 10:16 PM
A proseltyizing atheist strikes me as a man who doesn’t care about football who is insistent that my love of the Cowboys is misplaced.
I can accept that you don’t like football, but why does it bother you so much that I do?
billy on December 1, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Their neck and neck with liberals
Weasel Zipper on December 1, 2007 at 10:18 PM
That’s fair enough. I consider myself an agnostic, but all the proclaimed atheists I know are nearly impossible to broach the subject at all.
SouthernGent on December 1, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Heart-ache.
Allahpundit on December 1, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I am an athiest. I agree 100% with staying out of peoples business. I can be an athiest, and I won’t try and make anyone else an athiest, just like you might be a christian, and I dont want you trying to convert me. Remember though, when you say that you want athiests to stop trying to convert people, apply that back to your own faith. I dont want creationism taught in schoo, I dont want you telling me what I can and cant do with my body, I dont want you telling my gf she cannot get an abortion because its against YOUR religion. This whole, “Don’t try and push your beliefs on other people” thing is MUCH more beneficial for an athiest than a christian. Christians to it all the time.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Because many of them are, deep down inside, afraid they are wrong?
Because many of them, deep down inside, are jealous?
Because, many of them, deep down inside, are arrogant narcissistic A-holes?
So many possibilities, so little time…
TheBigOldDog on December 1, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I believe,even if they don’t,
I have faith,hope,and will
always bank on the good,and not evil.
At least, I hope,the atheist’s
have faith in the good,and not
the evil.
canopfor on December 1, 2007 at 10:25 PM
We’ll pray for you.
Zorro on December 1, 2007 at 10:28 PM
@ TheBigOldDog on December 1, 2007 at 10:25 PM
You seem to have a lot of opinions of athiests as if the same exact things dont apply to christians. BTW, what are we afraid of? We dont believe in God, heaven, or hell. We dont have anything to be afraid of. What again are we jealous of? I wont argue against the arrogant narcissistic a-hole part, because frankly I am one and it wouldnt be genuine to deny it, but it seriously doesnt apply only to athiests, take a look at your post for example.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:28 PM
My, my, my. A little overly defensive aren’t we?
We weren’t talking about Christians. The man wanted some ideas why atheists care so much and I threw out a few. And see, even you had to admit I got one right ;)
TheBigOldDog on December 1, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Haha, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:36 PM
You will be assimilated. Anyway, I’m off to anger management class with some of my buddies from the collective.
ronsfi on December 1, 2007 at 10:36 PM
muyoso – Keep in mind that Christians are taught that we can only get to Heaven through a belief in Jesus Christ. If not, we go to Hell. So the reason that Christians try to convert others is to save them from Hell.
Granted, some Christians go about it in a very annoying or mean manner. Instead of selling their beliefs and hoping you come around to them, some force them upon you and then question your morality call you a bad person if you don’t agree with them. I can understand not wanting that sort of prostlizing.
But, really, wouldn’t you want people to at least want to attempt to “save you”? Considering that Christians believe someone must be “saved” to go to Heaven, I would hope that someone at least made the polite attempt to “save me” if they found out that I was a non-believer. It shows they care. What does it say about a Christian who finds out that one is a non-believer and doesn’t even make the attempt to “save” them? Pretty much shows they don’t care if they go to Hell.
I still laugh at the Seinfeld episode where this scenario plays out with Puddy and Elaine. :)
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:37 PM
What angle is this guy writing from? He doesn’t want dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt? What? Would he prefer flippant faith and flippant doubt? I would much rather have someone like Hitchens to argue with than the, “agree to disagree” crowd. Seriously, what is this “third way” this guy is describing? In fact, the irony of it is, that with his writing of this, he himself is moving along the road of proselytizing. He wants to convince people. He wants to change people’s minds. By doing this he is knee-capping himself. No. Give me AP, give me Hitchens. But keep this guy away from me.
Weight of Glory on December 1, 2007 at 10:38 PM
“…prostlizing…”
Hmmm, that would be proselytizing.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:38 PM
@ Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Dont you want the athiests to “save you” all that time you waste going to church and “save you” from believing in something I know to be false? Your question works both ways.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Agnostics are the oil on the troubled waters between the turbulent antipodal belief systems of “theism” (IS, too!) and “atheism” (IS, not!), suggesting laughter at our hubris and humility at out reach as the soothing balm on these quantum waves.
That a polyglot of staggeringly-complex cells and nascent self-awareness presumes to know the Heart and Mind of the Infinite and Eternal well enough to kill about it, or to legislate about it, is comical, at best.
We all three (believers, anti-believers, and those who are still wondering) have militant, marching theocratic crazies to fight, now.
Nit-picking about solved problems (The Inquisition, Giordano Bruno, et al) strengthens the jihadis hand.
Focus on the shiny knife coming out your neck.
Not the dusty crimes of past fools.
profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
@ profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I agree with you about focusing on Islam as the threat. You will notice however that athiests pretty much dislike/hate Islam much more than Christianity, because one actually does some good while the other is a cesspool of ignorance and barbarism.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:42 PM
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I don’t take atheism that way at all. I don’t feel “saved” when someone tells me there is no God, we have no souls and there is no afterlife. I feel like I have no point to living my life and I want to kill myself. Because, afterall, I don’t matter, right? What is the point to going through this stressful sh*t we call life if there is no point to it? Why go to work if I don’t have to? Why deal with the ups and downs and joys and depressions of relationships if I don’t have to? I can just off myself and it’s all over right? No harm, no foul? I don’t go to hell, because it does not exist. Atheism tells me that everything just happened by chance and my life means nothing, what I do has no effect on anything and in the end, I don’t matter. If I ever seriously came to that realization and fully believed in it, I would probably kill myself. I’m no sh*t serious. Because really there is no benefit to struggling through life if there is no goal of anything. The endpoint is nothing.
If someone else wants to live that depressing of a life, feel free. But don’t push that sh*t on me. It is much more comforting, real or not, to believe that my life has meaning.
Now, am I saying all atheists should kill themselves? Of course not. I am saying that if *I* truly believed that there was no God, no afterlife, no Hell, then that is what *I* would believe and start thinking about. My point is that someone converting me to atheism is not any kind of “saving” experience.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Just so I don’t start having people flip out over what I wrote, I am not thinking about suicide or feel my life is worthless, etc etc or need someone to “save me”. And I am also not ridiculing atheists here. This is MY belief in atheism. It is how I would feel if I were to follow the path that there is no God, I have no soul and there is no afterlife.
So don’t take my post as any cry for help OR as a meanspirited attack on atheists. It is my thought process of thinking about how I would feel were I to completely lose my faith and believe in atheism.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Athesism as practiced in 2007 is, in actuality, a faith unto itself. Atheists have driven any trace of Christianity from the public forum unless it is accompanied with a whole trainload of tolerance attached.
Let me be clear here. This is a major holy holiday for Christians. It celebrates the birth of our savior- the one whose death keeps us from the fires of Hell. It shouldn’t have to be shared with atheists by forcing all public displays to be “unoffensive.”
I’m sick and tired of atheists winnning the debate that confuses “tolerance” with the atheist goal that no symbol of faith be present in public view. I’m a Christian please wish me a merry Christmas instead of happy holidays or season’s greetings because my savior’s birth is being celebrated not the winter solstice, a minor Jewish holiday, or whatever reason atheists think they need time off this time of year. After all, if you aren’t celebrating the birth of Christ, shouldn’t December 25th be just another workday?
highhopes on December 1, 2007 at 10:53 PM
@ Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I would ask you, what is the POINT to christianity? You live here, which means nothing, so you can live forever in heaven? There are plenty of reasons to live life without a god. You are saying that without god, you would enjoy your relationships less? Without god, you wouldnt like your children, wouldnt enjoy spending time with them? God makes food taste great, makes sex feel good, makes jokes funny? Those are the reasons to live life. With or without a god, it doesnt make a difference. You say you would kill yourself because from the YOUNGEST ages, you were told constantly told that every good thing is a gift from god, every bad thing is a test from god, and god is the reason for living. If YOU were born in pakistan, you SURELY wouldnt believe what you believe. Are you saying that if you were born in pakistan you would kill yourself (does not include suicide bombing which of course you would do)?
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:55 PM
@ highhopes on December 1, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I am an athiest and I feel the exact same way. It ISNT the athiests which fight against christmas, I LOVE CHRISTMAS. It is the liberals and other religions which always fight against christmas and say that crappy “happy holidays” BS.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:57 PM
It is absolutely appalling how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be when it comes to the belief in God and their religion.
It is also very telling how defensive and hateful religious people are when it comes to atheists. Anybody who feels threatened by an atheist is so insecure in their own faith that they HAVE to lash out in anger. They have no choice because deep down they know how stupid they are. There is no other reason why an atheist would bother them so much.
So all you religious people who get so angry at atheists really need to stop and ask yourself why we bother you so much.
It’ll come to you.
Jaynie59 on December 1, 2007 at 11:05 PM
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 10:55 PM
To put it simply, part of my Christian upbringing taught me that my life has meaning, that I have a soul and that if I live a life through Jesus, I will go to Heaven. Those are the basics. That is the basis of my life up to this point. It is what gives me comfort.
Someone telling me that my life has no meaning, I have no soul and there will be no afterlife… how do you think that makes someone feel? You somehow see that as some kind of release from the bondage of Christianity. I see it as the opposite. Especially if I am struggling through life (which I am). Sometimes, what keeps me going, is the faith that God put me here for a purpose. Sometimes what keeps me going is the fear that I will go to Hell. Sometimes what keeps me going is the fact that my grandpa and my mother in Heaven are looking down on me and I am making them proud of me.
Now, were I to believe in atheism, I really don’t see what would keep me going. I wouldn’t see a point in anything anymore. Why go to work? Why bust my butt to try to get back in shape to impress women only to have to deal with their emotional BS and get played for a fool time and time again and get rejected? Why would I want to go through all the hardships of life when I could just end it all?
You say that I should live life for relationships, children, food, sex, jokes. Okay, well most relationships are a pain in the rear, I won’t be having children if I don’t get married (and I won’t be getting married since I don’t have a girlfriend and have given up on love anyway), food is not a good enough reason to put up with the crap we call life, won’t be having sex without getting married (and I won’t be getting married so that is out) and jokes are not a good enough reason to put up with all the crap we call life.
So there you go.
And as I said earlier, I’m not trying to attack atheists here. I am simply stating how I feel when I start to rationalize atheism as a viable life philosophy for myself. You don’t have to work to convince me that atheism isn’t all that bad. That’s simply not how I see it. The same way you don’t see belief in God as all that appealing.
I’m not trying to convert you here and I don’t need you converting me. I simply was pointing out that Christians proselytize in order to save people from Hell. One way of taking it if someone tries to “save” you is that they feel you are worthy of saving. I would feel more offended if someone *didn’t* attempt to save me. Though I can also sympathize with people who don’t like it when some people don’t respond to “I don’t want to be saved, but thank you” and continue to push.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Time to reshuffle the deck:
Our priorities in the West are wrong. Secularism is what we should be spreading across the globe
If Gillian Gibbons, the British schoolteacher, was not incarcerated somewhere in Sudan, the whole Teddy Bear called Mohamed incident would be comical. But it serves to remind us once again that fundamentalist religion and Western values do not sit together. And it rubs in that we should spend more time promoting secularism around the world and worry less about spreading democracy.
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God.
The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote, but no less important, that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Jaynie59 on December 1, 2007 at 11:05 PM
This applies equally to atheists who are so offended by people of faith that they lash out in anger at them.
You are right that believers have no reason to be offended by atheists, but so too do atheists have no reason to be offended by believers.
In my experience, the only time believers are annoyed by and lash out at atheists is when the atheists attack their belief and call them stupid, illogical, unreasonable, etc and work to eliminate their holidays and such. And I see atheists get worked up when believers call them immoral. So it goes both ways and both sides flip out.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Here’s my creed: I am a non-believer, and if you ask me to, I can coherently explain to you my world view, with no god in it. At the same time, I know better than to try to convince a believer that I am right and he is wrong. I think this type of proselytizing is not just futile but also boorish. While I can appreciate Allahpundit’s brand of thoughtful godlessness, I have little patience for people like Hitchens who write books and engage in debates trying to prove the non-existence of a deity. Life is just too short for that sort of exercise in futility. And since ‘atheist’ is increasingly used to mean this proselytizing type of non-believer, I tend not to define myself as an atheist.
At the same time I am equally impatient with the throngs of believers who equate belief with morality, who are charitably surprised that I am a decent human being without the guidance of the scriptures and who threaten me for all sorts of afterlife punishments for not being religious.
And here’s an exit thought: I grew up in a country (in the historically less fortunate half of Europe) where you could not be in a position of political leadership if you believed in God, or failed to at least pretend not to. Now I live in a country where you can’t be in a position of political leadership if you don’t believe in God or at least don’t pretend you do. Something to think about, no?
factoid on December 1, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Michael in MI-
A world without a “given” meaning (deity or ideology) means that one has to be created from the raw matter of the universe.
By our own strength and daring and ingenuity.
How is this not enobling and astonshing enough to live for?
To devote your existence to those to come (children or family or countrymen-and-women or all fellow beings) is a profound “meaning”.
And even more heroic than merely working toward “given” heaven.
Because the uncertainty means that you are still willing to fight, even without a guarantee of any eternal reward, as long as you can uplift those on this miraculous little planet, and aid in the upsweep of our brute climb from the id to the stars.
If there is more, afterward, it would be a blessing.
But I see so much to be fascinated and enthralled and inspired by in our species’ godlike struggles to tame fire, discover the lens, cure illness, and do things that even God himself never did (inventing 3-D perspective representations on 2 dimensional surfaces, etc., etc., etc.) that there is too little time to sour this protean chance with a resentment that it might not gain you another life.
Meaning is mostly man made.
Like Art.
Which makes it all the more astounding.
That a mere collection of conscious cells could create the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Dying Gaul, the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, Hamlet, The Songs of Innocence and Experience, the internal combustion engine, radio, rocketry, spectroscopic analysis, ad infinitum.
Who has time to carp about eternity when our days are so full of homegrown miracles?
(Even though I wouldn’t mind an open-ended afterlife to continue the explorations, naturally, I won’t let its uncertainty cast de-meaning upon this life.)
“Man would rather have the Void for a purpose than be void of purpose.”
is the best phrasing of it I’ve ever come across.
profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 11:16 PM
@ Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:10 PM
First I would ask you why you think that I, being an athiest dont have a soul. In saying that without your christianity, you have no soul, you are effectively saying that I have no soul.
It sounds like you have had some hardships in your life. Losing a mother is a very hard thing, as well as a grandma. I have lost both of my gransmas, one grandpa, and recently one of my great grandmothers. While I don’t believe they are up there looking down on me, I do try and live my life by the lessons they taught me. I am not trying to get you to change your religion. You believe in christianity and I respect that. I have no more proof that I am right then you have proof that you are right. We all find things that work for us to make it through tough times in life.
I like christianity. I dont believe in a lot of its teachings, and I dont believe in its god, but I like the morals it teaches. The reason christianity never caught on with me is that I always interpreted the bible in the same light as other childrens stories when I read it. It was a complex story with very real lessons to learn from them. I always understoof the bible as an easy way to disseminate morality and meaning to the masses.
BTW, my best friends are christian and catholic. We get along great as we believe in nearly identical things politically and socially, but we do get in arguments when it comes to things over religion.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Hey, cheer up.
I’ve got good news and bad news for you.
I’m in pretty good shape, and I don’t impress women all that much.
That was the good news and the bad news.
MB4 on December 1, 2007 at 11:28 PM
profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Very enlightening post, profitsbeard. Thank you.
I have pretty much stated all that I felt I wanted to, but I wanted to address your point about the afterlife. Personally, I don’t think that I am doing what I am doing to earn an afterlife or earn my way into Heaven. When I speak of “meaning”, I mean that my rationale is that God put me here for a reason. That’s my starting point. And it’s what I always go back to when I am down in life. I think to myself that God had to have put me here for a reason, even if that reason was simply to affect one person in a positive way so that person could live their life better and affect others in a positive way and maybe one of those people would turn out to do great things in the world. That’s how I rationalize my meaning in life. I don’t believe that I am here for myself. I believe I am here to affect others in a positive way, to leave the world better than when I came into it. If not, then I am merely “existing” and what’s really the point to that?
But if I take away that starting point that God put me here for a reason, and insert that I was just a random result of my parents, who were just random results of their parents and so forth and so on back and back, then that’s kind of depressing. And then I extend that out to everyone and to the entire planet and universe and then I begin to see that my existence is as meaningless and inconsequential and random as the entire universe.
I dunno. I wasn’t really going to post in this thread, since the religious debates usually go nowhere and end up in all sides insulting each other. But my initial comment was based off muyoso reminding me of the Seinfeld episode and I never pass up the chance to reference Seinfeld. :)
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I am a Christian and true Christianity is all about freedom. I am free to seek God to see if He exists, and if He does and He changes my life, interacts with me and convinces me through my study and seeking of Him, then I am free to choose to believe that He incarnated Himself as Jesus Christ and I am free to choose whether I will follow the teachings of Jesus. Or not. And I am free to live with the consequences both here and in the afterlife, if I choose to believe in an afterlife.
And the most important part is the FREEDOM to choose. Everyone is free to choose. Having religious beliefs, or not, and living your life accordingly should be voluntary.
But often it is not. For example, I am forced to pay taxes, and my tax dollars go to schools where my children are not free to study their faith. I should be free to direct where those monies go with (for example) a voucher. Just like atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc. should get a similar voucher (or other instrument) to allow them to choose. So I exercise my freedom to engage in political debate to get vouchers passed.
Because I have faith does not mean that I must sit idly by and be a doormat. My faith does not exclude me from political debate, voting, running for office, etc, which I will engage in civilly, logically and respectfully. Quite the opposite, I am compelled to engage by the belief system that I choose to stake my life on.
It is not my job as a follower of Christ to convert, it is my job to deliver the message that there is a choice and EVERYONE is free to make a choice to believe and follow, or not.
Faith, or not having faith, is all about freedom. It’s not about convincing the other person they are wrong…it’s about presenting your point of view to those who are interested in hearing it, they will accept it or not, and vice-versa.
How to discuss it is not as complicated or contentious as it is often made out to be.
JustTruth101 on December 1, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I don’t believe Christians have souls and atheists do not have them. I believe that if there is no God, then we (believers and non-believers) must not have souls, because I thought that the belief in souls comes from a belief in God (on the flip side of this, since I am a believer, I believe that everyone has a soul, believer and atheist alike, even if the atheist doesn’t believe s/he has a soul). If I am wrong in that, then forgive my mistake. But that’s why I said that. There is really no logical or scientific reasoning for a soul, correct? I thought a soul was the creation from religion. If there is some other non-belief basis for the logical and/or scientific belief in a soul, then please let me know of it.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Well, you didn’t cheer me up, but you did make me laugh out loud. So thanks. :)
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:37 PM
The word soul can be interpreted many different ways. Religious people may interpret it as a gift from god which gives them knowledge of right and wrong and helps them with their life. An athiest might view the soul as our advanced reasoning, the ability to think through complex situations and communicate so thoroughly. Others may call it other things than a soul, but the belief i think is fairly common.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Jaynie59 on December 1, 2007 at 11:05 PM
stop and ask yourself why we bother you so much.
Because you seem to be incapable of disagreeing without being a total a-hole? Just a guess:
how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be
deep down they know how stupid they are
dextergreen on December 1, 2007 at 11:42 PM
OT – #1 Missouri and #2 West VA go DOWN!
Which means Ohio State is in the National Title game. To the shagrin of Michigan fans here. heh I love it.
Michael in MI on December 1, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Abortion is primarily but not exclusively a religious issue. Hitchens is anti-abortion for instance. If a foetus is a living being as increasingly many scientists believe it to be then abortion is murder.
Yes its against MY religion but then if the atheist utopia of rationalist universal enlightenment ever comes to fruition shouldn’t abortion be considered a no-no?
Frown upon God all you like but (in 2007) it would take a kind of perverse narcissism to argue that the fruit of the womb is merely a non-life that can be done away with whenever conflicts with your plans.
aengus on December 1, 2007 at 11:53 PM
@ aengus on December 1, 2007 at 11:53 PMvvv
Dont get me wrong, I am against abortion as well. I was just using it as an example of an issue that religious minded people try and push their views on others.
muyoso on December 1, 2007 at 11:59 PM
If you are saying that you have a soul then you are effectively saying that you are not an atheist.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM
@ aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Absolutely not. Your version of what a “soul” is and means is very different than mine I am sure.
muyoso on December 2, 2007 at 12:05 AM
No it can’t. It can be understood as what it actually means or misunderstood entirely.
First of all it a Christian concept and second of all you are confusing a soul with a conscience.
Atheism is a rejection of the very idea of ensoulment. Your thinking is muddled.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:10 AM
@ aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I will play along. What is the official definition of what a “soul” is?
muyoso on December 2, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Look I don’t want to sound mean or patronising but the word soul can not changed to mean what you think it does anymore the word chair could be interpreted to mean three-piece office suite. You’re understandably confused because the word soul is used as a metaphor more often than it is in its original meaning. Your soul is your spiritual self, you are ensouled by God at birth and after you die your soul goes to heaven or hell. If you do not believe in transcendence then the concept of a soul is a delusion to be mocked by Hitchens, Dawkins etc.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I’m an atheist but I don’t proselytize no matter how much I want to. I am angry a lot which might seem strange to you but try seeing the world from my point of view. I see your beliefs as being about as interesting as a child’s belief in Santa Claus. I’m surround by this belief system and I have it pushed into my awareness on a daily basis. I have the same sickening reaction when someone brings religion into our conversation as I would if they suddenly indicated they could find water under the ground with a bent stick.
abrown28 on December 2, 2007 at 12:19 AM
profitsbeard on December 1, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Indeed, great posts by quite a few tonight – this is one of the more substantive, less personal bashing, atheists/theists posts in a while.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 12:22 AM
aengus-
.
Perhaps not.
The Egyptians believed in two souls:
-the ka and the ba.
The ka was the soul which left the body for the next life at death.
The ba was the co-soul that animated the body in this world, alone.
So an atheist could have a ba soul but not (necessarily) a ka soul.
Souls are engrossing things, historically.
Psyche, pneuma, thumos, et al.
A lot of concern and thought from different cultures and religious has gone into this idea.
And an wonderful thing it is.
Soul music, included.
profitsbeard on December 2, 2007 at 12:22 AM
One more tire for that red Corvette. Then you’ll see impressed women, shape, or no shape :)
p.s. sent you $50.00 on the Pope thread.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 12:23 AM
@ aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:17 AM
SOUL - the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
One does not need to be religious to have feeling, thought, spirituality. Your definition of the soul is HEAVILY influenced by the bible. I see the soul as everything that isnt physical in my body. My thoughts, my dreams, my ambitions, those to me constitute my soul. The word soul can be defined MANY different ways. The very fact that Hindus, Buddhists, and christians all reference the soul directly and all dissagree upon its definition is evidence of this fact. No one is changing the definition of what a soul is, its just that since its not something that can be seen or measured, its VERY open to interpretation.
muyoso on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 AM
If you don’t mind, please share the name of the country factoid. That is an exceptional “exit thought” for pondering.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 12:26 AM
The Egyptians were not atheists. As you pointed out, they believed in two souls.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I think both atheist and theist are wrong.
I am happy that what ever they believe, makes them happy.
TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 12:32 AM
If you want to go into metaphysics that’s fair enough. You’re the first atheist I’ve ever encountered who believed that existence could be experienced “as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body”.
This would explain your opposition to abortion (which is supported by your philosophical assumptions) unlike many atheists who proclaim a purely carnal worldview.
I understand what you mean and I accept it, even if I don’t agree with it.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Haha, an agnostic fundamentalist. It takes all kinds.
aengus on December 2, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Well I know that it involves a lot of invisibility.
MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Accidents do happen.
MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 12:50 AM
MB4-
Accidie doesn’t.
profitsbeard on December 2, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Oh I have some theories that I can’t prove.
But, I am pretty sure no theist or atheist can proof there theory or belief either.
But I guess religion, like food or vitamins taken in correct doses is good for ya.
TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 12:57 AM
I just checked. Hot Air has more atheist-based threads than any other major blog. Congratulations.
Exit statement: I don’t care what atheists think.
Plus now I get pop ups.
Ummm… hey?
I find myself visiting less and less.
wccawa on December 2, 2007 at 12:58 AM
@ TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 12:57 AM
I agree neither can prove 100% their beliefs, but I think I could make a pretty logical argument for atheism and against christianity. Now any other religion other than christianity, I am not familiar enough with to argue against, other than maybe Islam which seriously I dont even needs to be debated.
muyoso on December 2, 2007 at 1:00 AM
There is a bible passage that states “The Kingdom of God is within.” (I think it’s Luke) Another interpretation for ‘within’ was ‘soul.’ In the Old Testament it is said that we are gods (Leviticus? I don’t know, it’s been a while since I’ve dwelt on this)
I don’t believe in what man has made god – I don’t think it is possible to comprehend God because He is everything and No thing – once He is defined He is limited and is no longer God, to which end everything that is preached is for man’s glory and not God’s. Why does God need praise and glorifying from something that is insignificant unless we are god as well, only a piece of the whole, yet separate while in these bodies? That we are here to learn and grow as spiritual beings?
I fall under agnostic as well; I have been down the path of “Righteousness” and know what lies beneath the mask of god – of god’s “chosen people.” Fear does not equal love. I believe that there is more to life than this, but I don’t think we can even begin to comprehend what it is – the journey that will continue after we die. After our physical bodies die. I am hoping that I will finally understand – understand why we suffer, understand what is is all about, what it is all for; just understand. To see the whole and not just the microscopic view I have now.
In the grand scheme of things, I figure whatever gets you out of bed in the morning, whatever gets you through the day, all the more power to you; I can definitely understand the need to believe in something more; it’s a great big, scary world out there and it’s a lot to take in.
There’s just more peace to be found when you don’t have to worry about going to hell for failing to believe in just such a way, act in just such a way. Besides, all the really interesting people are going to be in hell. :o)
Actually, everyone is pretty much destined for hell because there are so many notions of who is going to ascend to heaven, from a handful to 30,000, or some other vague number – somebody has figured it out. And does that number include everyone through out time, or only the people who are alive now? And one can only hope they are on the final list because God will choose whom He will choose – it even says so in the Bible. So is faith misplaced if you are not destined for heaven? Will a life led in just such a way still have meaning if it all ends badly – or in a manner different than what was expected? what was promised? I spend a lot of time pondering these things and so far, the answers I have received have not been very reassuring.
“Luminous beings are we; not this crude matter.” Master Yoda
Blight on December 2, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Blight-
If women’s lips are
then God bless crude matter.
profitsbeard on December 2, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Check for some folders in your programs folder that start with “Qdr”
Qdrpack, QdrLoader, etc. I had just started getting these annoying popups and Spybot s&d and adaware ignored them. I whacked them with killbox and voila.
TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 1:15 AM
I’m glad somebody’s calling them out. Dawkins is a fool, and Harris’ writing sounds like an extended and disjointed column by the Radical of the Week in your local campus newspaper. They’re both (nominally) scientists with poor observation skills who refuse to see the implications of their own philosophical conclusions. Hitch is a bit better (at least he’s eloquent and sticks to his own expertise) and I’ve not read Dennett, but overall, if this is what modern atheism has to offer, it has really gone to Hell.
Big S on December 2, 2007 at 1:18 AM
I am with you Bro. but when these militant type Atheist start trying to sell their brand of religeon it gets boring.
I too was an energetic Atheist in my youth. But for the love of god now Dawkins has a frgging icon. How long will it be before he starts laying on hands, handling snakes and passing the plate?
TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 1:21 AM
I just checked. Hot Air has more threads, period, than any other major right-wing blog. My apologies to our readers for including one thread about religion or non-religion each day amid the 25 posts and 50-60 headlines Bryan and I bust our asses to bring you.
Sorry to hear you’re visiting less. Enjoy your new digs.
Allahpundit on December 2, 2007 at 1:21 AM
AP, I think your threads are controversial and it keeps things lively. I have noticed that these threads tends to get mucho posts and are stimulating to both believer and non-believer alike.
I think some people think Conservatives are all locked-step Christians and are surprised to learn otherwise.
TheSitRep on December 2, 2007 at 1:34 AM
And we are free to ignore those threads which do not appeal to our interests. It’s not as though we have to read every thread, with all the comments. . .
at least I feel free to ignore those that do not interest me, although, now that I think about it, I’ve considered registering a complaint about all the trash. . . heh, but conclude it would be pointless.
One man’s trash …. is another man’s treasure. . and so forth. .
The article cited in your post was thought provoking. So much so that I checked out some of the other articles on that site, only to conclude that this was a single nugget in a steaming pile of fool’s gold, and this one article was worthwhile only because the author was seemingly trying to find a valid, thoughtful, point of view between two extreme positions.
rockhauler on December 2, 2007 at 2:11 AM
What did I do? LOL
SouthernGent on December 2, 2007 at 2:31 AM
I’m sure Atheists everywhere are devastated.
ronsfi on December 2, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Michael in MI:
“But, really, wouldn’t you want people to at least want to attempt to “save you”?
No, I’d really prefer they mind their own business.
aengus:
“Atheism is a rejection of the very idea of ensoulment.”
Actually, atheism more often tends to be a rejection of the very sort of rules you’re attempting to apply here. Atheism and Christianity, for example, may be mutally exclusive, but atheism and spirituality are certainly not.
JM Hanes on December 2, 2007 at 4:17 AM
But you are stupid.
There is absolutely no way around that. None. Stupid, Illogical, unreasonable. There is NO WAY any thinking person could possibly believe in such a monster like God, without some character flaw, or base fear that doesn’t allow them not to believe.
And the reason atheists bother theists so much is that we hold up that mirror that you can’t stand to see your own reflection in. There really is no other explanation.
This election is the perfect proof. Here we have Mitt Romney, a Mormon who has a very good chance of winning the primaries and maybe even the general election, and devout Christians can’t bring themselves to criticize his “faith”. Here is a man who claims to believe that he will be a god himself someday and rule over his own planet. Here is a man who is clearly not a Christian, but calls himself one, and all you Christians say it doesn’t matter.
What do you people believe? How can you expect us atheists to respect you when you don’t even respect your own faith enough to define what it means?
I suspect now I’ll be accused of Mormon bashing. Yes, I am. I think they are nuts and nobody who believes such crap has any right to be president.
But everything is relative, and some ideas are dumber than others. Are Christians so thin skinned that they will let an atheist like me make them so mad they support a but like Romney because they don’t want to admit he’s as nutty as I think he is?
Apparently so.
Why not just vote for a Muslim and get it over with.
Jaynie59 on December 2, 2007 at 6:26 AM
Personally, I don’t buy any of the man-made churches proposing to be the One True Faith. Most exist for propping up very human power structures and have little to do with salvation in the after life. I have little patience “my team owns all” approach to faith. It’s annoying, insulting and little more than self-aggrandizing.
However, I do believe many individual members are earnest and truthful in their beliefs. There are truly spiritual people who would be good, decent people regardless of thei affiliation with any faith. I respect that. I just ask the same. Likewise, there are a-holes that will be a-holes whether they have been “saved” or not.
My own personal reasons for not believing are just that–personal. I wasn’t “converted” by another atheist but came to my own belief (or lack thereof) over many years. I don’t share that with anyone, I don’t go around trying to “convert” anyone.
The atheists who do go around trying to convert believers, in my opinion, are pretty much out to do it for feelings of superiority. I put them in the same category as the “holier than thou” group. Call it an “anti-holier than thou” group. Both are annoying.
I also don’t give up on this life just because I may not believe in a “heaven” or “hell”. That’s like saying you aren’t going to eat your dinner because you won’t be having dessert. Refusing to take part and do good things in this life because you may not have an afterlife is a pretty narrow minded and selfish view on things.
Faith1 on December 2, 2007 at 7:20 AM
FWIW, atheists don’t make me angry. Nor do they “bother” me. More on that in a minute. But first:
Your second post is unmistakably angry, disrespectful of others’ beliefs, assume definite and negative things about their inner motives which may not be true, and derisive of their persons. And accuses all believers of being either stupid or having some “character flaw” that makes them theists.
Wow. Sure sounds like you’re “angry” and “bothered” by theists. Project much?
Like I said, atheists don’t make me angry. People screaming they know for sure that a God of any kind doesn’t exist (we believe in a loving God but you are free to believe in a “mean” God if that seems more reasonable to you), don’t make me angry but puzzled, since it seems to me that they are the unreasonable ones. Agnosticism in the face of lack of certainty seems more reasonable to me. More in the next post.
inviolet on December 2, 2007 at 8:13 AM
As far as atheists “bothering” me as in “threatening” me emotionally or something, I would have to say honestly “no.” I know what I believe and that someone else believes differently doesn’t change that I believe my beliefs are true.
Honestly, I have met both theists and atheists who are bothered by atheism/theism. Since I know many more theists, I’ve probably numerically met more theists who are “bothered” in this way, but proportionately? It’s nearly 100% of the atheists I’ve met who are “bothered” and “angry” about others believing in God. Maybe my experience is atypical. But there it is.
And…
is yet one more example of this.
And, to be fair,
This post also makes assumptions, in this case about atheists’ motives, which may or may not be true.
I will say that what “bothers” me about atheists is that I feel very sorry for them, since many of them seem angry at even the *idea* of God and so they have no clue for how long, and how intensely, God loves them and wants them to reap *all* the benefits of knowing His love. And that’s just in THIS life, not even counting the life to come.
inviolet on December 2, 2007 at 8:25 AM
A good person and friend once said that you should not need a God in order to do what is right. Her opinion. We were in highschool when she said it, and I felt appalled. But she had her point; do what is right for the sake of what is right. I suppose that would be God’s will, that we do what is right because it is right. Inevitably, the question would arise, without God, how does one know what is “right”–or how does one agree with others what is “right”. I suppose that if “right” exists, then it is at least sensed. All in all, God is sensed just as “right” is. If a person lacks a sensation, that does not mean that others are wrong in their sense awareness.
Pagans rule. As per the ACLU et.al. legions obfuscating religious or social symbols from public view, twisting our Constitution against we the people, look at how the Rockefellers juxtaposed the Greek Prometheus over the Christmas tree. Of course, they would promote their own myth–but juxtaposing it as the Christmas symbol has yet to be noted or jeered by others besides myself.
maverick muse on December 2, 2007 at 8:37 AM
God loves them = God has loved them
inviolet on December 2, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Meh, Atheism is just like any other ism or ideology. It has it’s adherents to various degrees and with that comes some measure of power and zeal. The more you convert to your ism, the more power you have and the more you can justify your own worth.
This invariably leads to problems among the more fervent practitioners.
Dash on December 2, 2007 at 8:40 AM
TNR? You’ve got to be kidding.
JiangxiDad on December 2, 2007 at 8:45 AM
When I first witnessed this, I took it more as a surprisingly strong resentment toward Christians. Angry, maybe.
And I wonder why.
Jaibones on December 2, 2007 at 8:47 AM
Now THIS guy needed to be tased, note the difference in the officers demeanor though:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1762680558358736520&q=police+ticket+crazy&total=37&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Dash on December 2, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Hey AP,
I’ll take this opportunity to respond to your oft repeated parry: You say God exists, I say Zeus exists. Prove me wrong.
As a Christian, I say that any time someone prayed to Zeus, to the extent that person thought Z created the world and the prayer sayer and to the extent the person was ignorant of Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Yahweh took that as a prayer to Him.
Just my $.02 and I’m no theologian.
As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity:
silverfox on December 2, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Dude!
I admit I’m skipping to the bottom here without reading all the comments, but I’m anxious to pipe in.
I call myself a reluctant atheist. Why? Because I don’t, um, believe that one can “choose” to believe something. Would I like to believe in God? A benevolent and all-powerful being with a personal interest in my life? Awesome.
I run a website for a good friend who converted to Catholicism (from Judaism), and she’s having a Mass said for my conversion next month, and I sincerely appreciate it. Her faith has lifted her out of depression and illuminated her life, and that’s fantastic. Frankly, I’m jealous of those who have “born again” experiences worthy of poetry or sculpture.
However: none of this makes me begrudge anyone who wants to start a prayer group after school, or display the 10 Commandments, or keep “Under God” in the pledge, or sing Christmas carols. ACLU atheists piss me off. Grow up already. I consider my life enhanced by 99 percent of religious activity (I’m including suicide bombings here as “religious activity” for sake of argument).
Anyhoo, I’ve gone on enough for one post.
saint kansas on December 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM
As a nontheist, it is neither in my interest nor my right to convince others to believe as me. I am a believer in free will.
I do, however, wish that militant atheists would shut their collective pie-holes, so that I can live my life in peace. I get a little tired of defending myself from those who think I’m without morals or that I have a secular agenda to kill religion in this country. Yes, I’m conservative, godless, and hated by what seems to be a large majority. : )
the goddess anna on December 2, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Some theists are making wild charges about the anti-theists. I just want to point out that a large faction of anti-theists would care as much about other people being religious as they care about them believing in astrology–except for politics. People acting under the influence of religion make horrible political decisions–from the peace activism and socialism of the Christian Left to the pro-lifeism of the Christian Right to the Jihad of the muslims. It’s the stupid and evil politics we hate–not really the religion itself.
thuja on December 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Good sentiment, but not quite godless it seems.
JiangxiDad on December 2, 2007 at 10:14 AM
NO! Back-off buddy. Save yourself. Non-Christian = non believer? Unbelievable.
JiangxiDad on December 2, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Allah, that’s an excellent article. Thanks for linking to it.
I believe that a person’s spiritual beliefs (including atheism) are his own business, and the freedom to worship, or not worship, is our right. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
As the article shows, the problem with the “new” Dawkins strain of atheism is that they would like to see all religious faith stamped out, almost even to the point of getting the government involved. That worked out so well in the USSR, didn’t it? These people are indeed “illiberal”.
I’ve spent a little time on Dawkins’ website, and a site run by one of his acolytes. I’ve found both the posts and comments there to be small-minded and nasty. These are NOT good people, and they are certainly poor ambassadors for their cause. I was repelled by their arrogance and condescending attitudes.
juliesa on December 2, 2007 at 10:37 AM
I dont want creationism taught in schoo, I dont want you telling me what I can and cant do with my body, I dont want you telling my gf she cannot get an abortion because its
against YOUR religionmurder.Why would you want Darwinism taught in school when it has been DISPROVEN by science? Creationism has never been disproven, but takes less leap of logical faith than does Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ – something from nothing.
ABORTION has to do with whether or not murder should be legal. It doesn’t have anything to do with religion other than religious people actually point to a verse in the Bible that says for them not to kill. If you think killing babies is OK, then killing period would be OK. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with being a civilized and responsible society.
The mere thought of just throwing away your problems by killing is chilling. Why would you, as an atheist, limit the decision to when the child leaves the womb? A child can not live on its own until maybe 3 or 4 or 5. Why not just allow them to be killed up to age 3 because of a financial hardship to the woman? After all, who has the right to tell someone what they can do with THEIR life?
Abortion is barbaric, and it is a tragedy that our society even considers it as a ‘solution’ (or ‘right) at all. You have the right to have sex or not, to use birth control or not. It is generally accepted that you do not have the right to kill people.
ThackerAgency on December 2, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Atheists and radical Liberal Christians/Hebrews/Muslims/Whatever, have put our postmodern culture central in their focus, and worship the self in place of pagan gods. Who are they kidding?. Therapeutic, adult-child theology is applied instead of a belief in the Triune biblical God.
What these people know about God is about the same level of unferstanding as what Clinton knows about the military.
Hening on December 2, 2007 at 12:58 PM
So…why are we talking about this yet again?
Sir Loin on December 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM
That’s not what I said, nor what I meant. When I say “non-believer” I am referring to anyone who does not believe in God or a god.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM
A prime example of why atheists have such bad reputations with believers. And are stereotyped as being hateful and angry.
No matter one’s belief, there is no reason to go around calling anyone, believer or non-believer, “stupid, illogical, unreasonable and having character flaws” simply on the basis of their belief or non-belief.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:28 PM
We have a reputation to maintain…you know…having more religious threads than any other blog.
SouthernGent on December 2, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Great post. I share a lot of the views you expressed. However, I hear the “suicide is selfish” thing all the time and I don’t understand why. Why is it selfish? Just because other people would feel bad after the person is dead? Well, if those other people cared so much, why didn’t they care enough to realize that the person was so depressed and on the brink of suicide?
When it gets down to it, no one has any duty to keep on living. We are all just here by chance, by luck. If someone wants to off themself and not participate is this chance life, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? Why is that “selfish”? There are no rules to life. No one asked to be here. We are all just here because our parents had sex and decided to go through with the pregnancy and birth. But we had no say in whether or not we wanted to be here. So why shouldn’t we have a say in whether or not we stay? Why is it selfish to decide we don’t want to stick around?
I just don’t get the “suicide is selfish” thing.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I agree. I can understand agnosticism much more than I can understand atheism or even strong faith. Personally, I have faith, but it’s not a strong faith. I’m not strong enough in my faith to go out and convince others to believe as well.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »