Quotes of the day
posted at 10:45 pm on October 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
“The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called ‘New Atheists’ said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new ‘New Atheists’ — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there’s still no God, but maybe religion isn’t all that bad…
“‘The work that we need to do, we atheists, humanists and non-believers, is to build a better world and not try to tear down those with whom we disagree,’ said Greg M. Epstein, the Humanist chaplain at Harvard University…
“Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative for the staunchly secularist Center for Inquiry and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues…
“Atheists are ‘God’s whistle-blowers,’ who keep believers honest and focused on the here-and-now, Selmanovic said. ‘Atheism at its best grabs us by the collar and throws us to the ground, demanding to see lives well lived, forcing us to dig deeper and live up to the best of our own religions,’ he writes.”
***
“Yesterday’s radicals wanted to tear down the economic structure of capitalism and replace it with socialism, and eventually communism. Today’s radicals are intellectually spent: they want to annihilate American culture, having absolutely nothing to put in its place. In that regard, these moral anarchists are an even bigger menace than the Marxists who came before them.
“If societal destruction is the goal, then it makes no sense to waste time by attacking the political or economic structure: the key to any society is its culture, and the heart of any culture is religion. In this society, that means Christianity, the big prize being Catholicism. Which explains why secular saboteurs are waging war against it.”
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: « Previous 1 2
When does Atheist 4.0 come out?
You’re an atheist but you keep it to yourself.
Jeff from WI on October 21, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Little did I know I’ve been an atheist 3.0 for more two decades.
Clark1 on October 21, 2009 at 8:31 AM
I need to grow up because I didn’t follow-up with some multi page treatise? Wow, if you only knew me, simplicity wouldn’t describe a conversation we could have about this. Truth is truth regardless of the length of explanation. I could certainly say much about this, but commenting on a blog post is not a big deal to me.
The countless accusations of “Obama is a communist” here are simplistic enough without being attacked. I believe Obama is the worst president we will have ever had. Although I could, I don’t feel the need to elaborate much further.
I knew someone would quote James in response to my comment. Caring for orhapns and widows, and being undefiled from the world certainly flows out from a person who has the love of Christ in them. The Bible is the last book that should be used for support of any sort of institutionalized religion this world has ever seen.
I don’t think a personal relationship with Christ is antithetical to a pure and undefiled religion with which God is pleased, just antithetical to what the average man today would consider “religion,” especially an atheist.
Grafted on October 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM
What the $%^& is a humanist and how can you be a chaplain if you have no faith? Essentially Mr. Epstein is a social worker with a really good gig.
That being said, more people should take on his message to stop hating dissenters.
highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Here’s a few fun facts for clarification.
Atheists are only 9% of the U.S. population.
76.5% (159 million) identify themselves as Christian. 81% affiliate themselves with some sort of religion.
GK Chesterton
kingsjester on October 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Here are, not here’s
Must be careful of the Grammar Police.
kingsjester on October 21, 2009 at 8:59 AM
That 9 percent are really annoying especially the spiteful troll Bill Mahr and Chuck the crazy person.
Most people waiver in there belief in the course of a lifetime from agnostic to some releigion and maybe back again. I don’t think it is as static as some people admit to.
kangjie on October 21, 2009 at 9:06 AM
When Lutherans from Wisconson keep their faith to themselves.
Squid Shark on October 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM
So, what is this guy saying, that atheists are really doubting Thomas’? Either you’re in or you’re out. GOD doesn’t like wishywashy. Why are non believers always trying to reinvent themselves? What a lonely existence.
Kissmygrits on October 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Wisconson= Wisconsin
Squid Shark on October 21, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Uhhh, if you’re an atheist, how can you believe you’re anything belonging to an entity that you avow does not exist?
MassVictim on October 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM
the atheists are just following Gramsci’s long march through the institutions….to destroy christianity..and therefore pave the way to a socialist state…
link
thats why I maintain a ‘conservative atheist’ is an oxymoron.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 9:47 AM
from the same article…
we’re still living with the the hellish legacy of the two most pernicious ideas of the 19th century, marxism and darwinism, both born out of atheism.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM
right4life wrote:
Nope. Religion gave us today’s virulent democrats. Religion gave us 0bama. Ask Notre Dame about their “social justice” programs.
noblejones on October 21, 2009 at 9:58 AM
As an atheist, I\’ve said publicly for a very long time that religion isn\’t \”all that bad\”. Granted I\’ve had a very small megaphone, and no real reason to try to find a larger one. Religion served and does serve a purpose, a good purpose in many respects. Equal or more bad purposes also come under the set that makes religion.I see the real bad outcome of this article is the co-opting of religion\’s trappings by those who would claim to be atheist. Creating an \”atheist church\” is an insanely bad idea. I would go further to say that creation of or participation in such an entity automatically excludes one from atheism itself. A godless religion is not atheism, it\’s the Democrat Party.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Wow, that formatting got butchered.?.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 10:02 AM
oh there are religious lefties…like the leadership of the episcopal church, but they abandon the bible, in order to embrace leftism.
you never heard of the ‘religous right’ huh?
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM
what church does obama go to again now that he is in DC?? still hasn’t found one yet, has he…so explain how religion gave us obama….
that bit of ‘logic’ should be interesting….
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Can an atheist tell me where there morals come from and what make someone good vs. not?
nolapol on October 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
right4life
Obama is a “humanist”.
JAM on October 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Right on. Well said.
connertown on October 21, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Can an atheist tell me where there morals come from and what make someone good vs. not?
nolapol on October 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Simple! Cause it helps you survive in the wild — er — well, I guess just eating everybody else instead of being kind would actually help you survive better. It’s cause being good helps the species survive! Er–except I guess it would be better for the species if individuals survived, so I guess they should just eat everybody else. It must be because — oh wait, I guess there really isn’t a very good survival of the fittest argument, now is there?
cynccook on October 21, 2009 at 10:28 AM
right4life wrote:
That’s who I’m talking about.
noblejones on October 21, 2009 at 10:40 AM
When you live in a society, eating other people and being a prick are not good ways to get by, you dont need Jesus to know that.
Squid Shark on October 21, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I seriously think you didn’t give any thought to this question before you asked. No offense meant, but the answer is pretty easy.
Morals come from the biggest dog in the group. What the biggest dog in the group says becomes the morality over time.
Prior to Christianity, morality was a very different thing from what you think of it today. In Communist China, morality is a very different thing from what you think of it today.
Atheists recognize this simple reality and we look toward more objective truths to define morality. Examples to follow.
Rule: do not murder
Reason/Moral imperative: To murder denies the group a viable member of society, the loss of the economic output harms the group and therefore oneself. That’s enough to justify a prohibition on murder. We could go further with more objective truths, but to do so would be a waste of time here. The above is enough.
Rule: do not steal
Reason/Moral imperative: To steal upsets the economic balance of society by undermining the concept of private property. Whereas the rational individual desires the protection of private party, stealing is irrational and therefore not something to engage in. Again, there’s a heckuvalotof OTHER reasons which are objective and truthful, supporting the prohibition on stealing, but no more are needed for this atheist.
The atheist desires to take the big dog out of the questions of morality because quite frankly, the big dogs are subject to change at the whim of a hyper-dictator, failed ideology or shift in the nature god-constructs.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM
so the religious right gave us obama??? huh?????? is this ‘atheist logic’???
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM
so you admit atheists have no objective way to tell right or wrong.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Simple. You install yourself as god. Then your goals/desires/lusts become your standards. It works well in the “here and now”, however, ultimately it will come down to one question. The same question asked of Peter by Jesus in the 16th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel; “But who do YOU say that I am?” [emphasis added] If you haven’t carefully thought through the answer, you should. Your eternal destination hinges on your response.
oldleprechaun on October 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
What the heck is a “humanist chaplain”?
joe_doufu on October 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I just showed you an OBJECTIVE means for determination of right and wrong. You are looking for a SUBJECTIVE (god-derived morals) means.
I think you may be mistaken on the definition of objective.
The objective method involves examining the situation or question in light of demonstrable positive and negative outcomes and effects.
The subjective method involves taking a cultural/individual/god-construct declaration and claiming it the most valid.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
you said:
so its whatever someone says it is. thats subjective.
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Yes, I did say that. Again, you are having a problem with yourself, not me.
Whether that dog is God/Jaweh/Allah or Idi “dictator” Mao, or the dude with the pointy hat, or the mason with the stone tablets, etc. etc it’s their declarations which make the morality.
Morality is a religiously bound term. Atheists can have “morals” for ease of conversation, but they are more aptly referred to as “reasons”. Morals do change at the whim of the powerful over time. Reasons derived from ojective truths should not change.
You’re trying to play gotcha games with me over definitions and the order of chosen word sets. In a multiparty discussion as we are engaged in, the practice of what you are attempting is generally referred to as intellectual dishonesty.
I’ve honestly tried to show where some of the overlap in terminology is, but you ignore it to try and play gotcha.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Jason Coleman is evading furiously,spinning the facts and spewing unthought out BS.
The reality is,atheists have NO MORALS whatsoever.
The only “morality” they have and the only thing that prevents them from committing atrocites in the name of self gratification(the only logical purpose in their lives)..is the laws of the land and the police that enforce such laws.
That is it!
Put them on a desert island or a place with no laws,and they will commit every atrocity imaginable in the name of self gratification.
Murder: OK
Rape: OK
Pedophilia: OK
Necrophilia: OK
Theft: OK
Lying: OK
Cannibalism: OK
There is absolutely NOTHING preventing atheists from doing any of these things,in fact if they follow the only logical outcome of their philosophy they will do all of these things because it gives them pleasure. The only thing that prevents them is the law and fear of being caught and imprisoned.
NEVER,NEVER trust and atheist!
They are extremely dangerous,sick and subversive people who would murder and rape their own dead mothers body and eat her flesh if they were on a desert island and could get away with it.
That is atheism people! Total moral less self gratification.
MaximusConfessor on October 21, 2009 at 11:51 AM
its useless to converse with atheists…
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Maximus, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing any of those things should you be dropped on a desert island, is there?
If so, what is it?
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM
That obviously wasn’t an atheist talking, now, was it?
Count to 10 on October 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM
If you insist that there is nothing preventing an atheist from doing these things, you must also agree that there is nothing preventing a religious person from doing them, either.
A moral code is a moral code; only as strong as the individual makes it, regardless of whether he believes in divine retribution. If you lack the foresight to see the negative material consequences of these acts, why would you care about theoretical consequences in an unobserved afterlife?
Count to 10 on October 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Interesting observation.
Count to 10 on October 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM
thanks
yours above as well
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Of course there is!
Having awareness of God and of the fact that He exists!
I would rather die a noble death,have spiritual life and go to heaven when I die,then commit atrocities and live,albeit live in spiritual death and go to hell when I die.
The difference is that you wouldn’t and that’s what makes you atheists so dangerous.
MaximusConfessor on October 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Gee Max. I guess you’re just a far better person than those good Catholic soccer players that got trapped in the Andes.
I guess you promise that, without a shadow of a doubt, you are a far better person with a more chaste religious life, with a more profound and firm awareness of the god-construct of your choice and those of your parents, than everyone in the Donner party. . . and that. . . you will no doubt exemplify honorable behaviors in the last fateful hours when all hope is lost should you find yourself in their situation.
Or are we JUST talking about idyllic desert/ed islands when no one is looking?
I could make that anonymous promise to the ether. I just can’t do it honestly.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Don’t confuse religion with individual morals.
An individual takes their morals with them wherever they go which is the American ideal, the collectivist may lose their moral guide when they leave that sphere of influence.
The fear of that loss is what creates orthodox fringe.
Speakup on October 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM
objective:
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
subjective:
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli c : arising out of or identified by means of one’s perception of one’s own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease
this is why the judgement of a dictator, or any atheist, as to what is right and wrong…is entirely subjective…there is no objective morality to go by…because an atheist recognizes no higher power than themselves….
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Thank you for posting the definitions you’d like to use. Let us begin again.
The objective method is the atheists’. The atheist evaluates “facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”. The evaluation or a position is dependent on demonstrable truths or empirical evidence.
The subjective method is the theists’. The theist evaluates scenarios “modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background”. The evaluation of a position is dependent on the dictate of a god-construct, state, ideology or some external force.
You’re not making your position, you’re making mine.
Your religion, your god-construct, IS subjective. It is not a universal, except to you.
Your god-construct is simply not the only option out there.
That is a subjective choice that YOU make.
Let me also address your aside about dictators. The issue isn’t right or wrong, it was about morals. Give the dictator power and time and morals will become whatever the dictator decides. The “right or wrong” of it is immaterial. Yes! The dictator is subjective. So are religiously based morals. Again, you keep making my points.
God is likewise subjective, by definition and practice.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM
So you profess to be fundamentally amoral person who is motivated only by concerns for your afterlife? It would be a-okay if God gave you an exemption?
Some of us would rather burn in hell for all eternity than commit some of these atrocities, just on principle, and we are the ones who can’t be trusted?
Count to 10 on October 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
this is laughable. the atheists are not ‘rational’ as we have seen from the atheist form of government: communism.
its like the embrace of darwinism by the atheists…the evidence doesn’t matter…it had to evolve because evolution is true. you think you’re rational, and the opposite is true.
its whatever the leader wants.
really? then why is murder bad? because you say so? or because an OBJECTIVE statement in the bible, inspired by God Himself, says so?
you so-called ‘reality based community’ types are irrational as hell.
delusional
right4life on October 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
There is a large difference between irrationality and holding incorrect assumptions, and a somewhat smaller difference between irrationality and holding contradictory assumptions. Don’t assume that any of them are the same.
Count to 10 on October 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The fact that some communist governments claim atheism is unfortunate. The fact that they do does not reflect on atheism any more than Monarchy reflects on Christianity. Atheism does not equal communist, communist does not equal atheist.
I point you to Acts 2 42, 44, 45
According to YOU, that’s correct. You take the word of a trained mason that what was on the Stone Tablets was put there by god, directly, and that’s the rule, RIGHT?
The leader, Dear Leader, God, Allah, god-construct-x etc. etc.
Already sufficiently answered, scroll up and read my original response, if you have problems with that response, please address it directly.
So murder was OK before the bible? Which version made it not ok? What about the murder of the Jews in the colisseuem? That was ok because there was no bible yet?
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
No not at all.
First of all..I believe(unlike you)that good and evil ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY EXIST.
Second of all,I specifically said that it is not only concern for the afterlife but specifically how these choices effect my spiritual awareness DURING this life ALSO. Re-read my earlier post.
MaximusConfessor on October 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I’m still waiting to find out if you think you’re more pious than those in the Donner party or the soccer players in the Andes.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I love this bit:
Does good exist? Sure it does. Nourishment exists. Nourishment is good, therefore good exists. Simple.
Does evil exist? Sure it does. Genocides exist. Genocide is evil, therefore evil exists. Simple again.
Good and evil absolutely and fundamentally exist. Sure thing, no problem there.
Granted, though simple, these aren’t perfect proofs because both can be cracked through examination. However, they are far more solid a set of proofs for good and evil than anything from the bible, or any holy texts for that matter.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM
God is the Creator of all things VISIBLE and INVISIBLE.
The Angelic and Demonic entities are 100% REAL fundamental realities that can literally be experienced and are scientific in the sense that they are verifiable realities which can be experienced with repeatable results… and in which all of mankind(throughout all of human history) have testified to and have witnessed.
Good and Evil are fundamental realities.
God is GOOD. Good is only good because it is OF God. Evil is darkness the opposite and the absence of God.
if you deny the fact of God’s existence..then you can in no way believe in absolute good, but only in relativistic self gratification with limitations based purely on what you can get away with and by how well your governments enforce their laws.
If you do not believe in demonic entities..try this experiment:
Sit down for 15 minutes in stillness,quiet your mind.
Watch and see what kind of suggestions will pop into your mind(and if you are aware of what is sin..which you are)watch and see how many of these suggestions try to lead you to sin.
This,in Orthodox Christianity, is called the Logismoi.
Suggestions from beyond ones self and of demonic origin which try to lead you to sin and to bondage to the Passions which will keep you in the state that you are in now…which is spiritual death, which in your limited reality, is all there is.
Just because you are stuck in spiritual death and a limited reality has no impact and does not change the fact that there are millions of SAINTS who transcend this and perform things you thought were impossible. What you experience of reality in your limited perception/in spiitual death..and compared to the Saints experience of reality..is simply poverty and bondage.
MaximusConfessor on October 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Here’s another “just an observation”. A great many atheists make a deliberate point of keeping their atheism to themselves. At 9% of the population, it’s likely that (unless you personally know only a fairly small set of people), that of all the people that you know, more than four of them are atheists. They just haven’t told you so.
If that’s the case, you’ll continue to believe “athiests” fit the mold of the in-your-face four you’ve described, because you’ll continue to fail to take this observation into account.
There may actually be 20 people you know, who happen to be atheists. That circumstance would externally look the same to you as those four being the only atheists you “know”, but it would radically chance the reality of what the “average” atheist in your life is like.
Think about it.
VekTor on October 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Exactly what difference does that make?
Speakup on October 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
“chance” s/b “change”
VekTor on October 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Ok, this old saw. I’ll bite. Who created God?
Simply not true. Not ALL of mankind agrees on any single religious event. Much less a single repeatable religious event.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present.
Dealt with already, easily. You’re not reading these posts you’re responding to are you?
God is GOOD.
Which god-construct are you speaking of? Jahweh-god? Allah-god? One of the Tirthankars-god? Or maybe you mean Neptune or Zeus?
You may believe this, but it’s not logically or experimentally true. It’s not a position you can logically or rationally defend, and it’s historically problematic, because your god is a modern god and if you want to limit good only until the set of time when your god was theorized and codified, then you have problems.
Again, your logic fails you. I engage in activities which I do not take personal gratification from all the time, too much so in my opinion. I don’t do this for or against the god-construct, but rather for a set of imperatives I have and need to get through my day, week, month, life.
You have some misconception that atheists run around trying to rape and pillage and try to skirt the law. I happen to obey the law more often than I don’t as I expect you do and as far as being close to the line on the law, I stay far away from that line for many reasons. Mainly because I view government as more intrusive and dangerous than I do religion. I’d rather spend time with Mormon missionaries than I would politicians and bureaucrats of any stripe.
As for absolute good, I’d suggest that the means I use to find what’s good is more sensible and reasoned than your “because the bible told me so” because when I have to defend what is good, I can do so without relying on someone else to translate something I can’t read and then feed me a version which I may never know the origin of.
If you do not believe in demonic entities..try this experiment:
This is laughable on so many levels. I can guarantee you that any atheist is far more comfortable sitting in the quiet dark space where one realizes who infinitesimally small they really are in the universe and how grand and curious the universe really is.
When most atheists sit alone with their thoughts they don’t always drift off to “sinful thought” and then get led off by flights of fantasy to try and amass a cult following to rampage the countryside.
Most of us are very comfortable sitting alone, quietly with our thoughts and use such times to question who we are and what we believe. We can handle the big question without needing some crib-sheet of how to behave and what to think.
Before we go any further: Are you a parody I’ve just been sucked into Maximus or do you seriously think you’re making any sort of sense here?
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2