The Atheist Delusion - Part II

Sam Eldridge, why the 2nd article? You're already the laughing stock of the internet.

His name is spelled Bill Maher and this is what he said in his movie "Religulous":

The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions being made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says "I'm willing Lord, to do whatever you want me to do". But since there are no actual gods talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and recognize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.

If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the millions of their fellow followers.

If we Christians are wrong and there is no God, we have lost nothing (but possibly a life full of hope, love and peace), but if you as atheists are wrong (just think about it!) you have lost everything. See you in eternity.

Sam,

Freedom of opinion is a protected right in America, but in order to form the best possible opinions, you need to have accurate information to base those opinions on. You don't seem to have accurate information for your opinions so I'd like to offer that information to you.

"You atheists are rabid in your beliefs"

There's no belief system to atheism. Atheism is a response to a claim of deity existence. There's not even any rules for how to reach your conclusion. You can reach it through logic, through tea leaves, through a sixth sense, or reach it the way you (I assume) are an atheist when it comes to Thor and Vishnu, you just refuse to believe.

"You can preach your religion of Darwinism in our schools, but our Christian beliefs are forbidden."

Where do I begin? Ok first, NO religion is permitted to be preached in public schools due to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (each American should read and know their Constitution). You can teach religion, but you can't preach it.

Second, science is not a religion. Science is a process that has been successful for understanding our world and affording humanity great achievements (we are, after all, communicating right now due to science). Science's process requires hypotheses be testable and refutable. For instance, you can claim grass is purple, but such a claim is easily refuted. Now you can also claim that grass is green due to fairies, but such a claim is not scientific because it can't be tested. This is why ID was denied in the Dover case, because it's an untestable claim and thus, not science.

I wouldn't expect Shakespeare to be taught in science class, and I wouldn't expect Newton's laws to be taught in a religion class. It's just not where they belong, so aside from the unconstitutional aspect, religion simply doesn't belong in a science class.

"If you want to proclaim that we come from monkeys..."

No, chimps and humans have a common ancestor. That's different. What you're saying is like you came from your cousin, when actually you both share a grandparent. Capiche?

"Why are you afraid to let Christians give their point of view in Schools, Government, etc.?"

The Supreme Court has ruled that doing that in school is coercive. The idea is that if presented by the school, then the pov carries the weight of the school's support and by extension, the government's, when this is unconstitutional (remember that 1st Amendment?). Far from restricting you, it's actually there to protect you. In our nation's history, Catholics invoked the 1st Amendment to have their children protected from Protestant preaching in school, and various Protestants have used it to protect their children from other Protestant teachings they disagree with. I know you like the idea of debate, which is fine if everyone is on equal footing, but if the authorities are the ones who champion one pov, then that's not equal footing, is it? This is the whole point of the Establishment Clause. Again, I encourage you to read it.

Most everything else you wrote is simply opinion. I don't agree with your opinions, but so be it, but the quoted bits above were simply based on either incorrect or insufficient knowledge. I will answer a question of yours...

"What are you atheists so afraid of? Why do you get so angry?"

I would say frustrated more than angry. Frustrated by opinions based clearly on a lack of knowledge and/or understanding and frustrated by what we see as continued attacks upon the Constitution. I would say angry at decisions made which are detrimental to society which were made based on religion like Abstinence only sex ed and no distribution of contraceptives (everywhere this occurred, there was a significant rise in teen pregnancies and STDs), blocking equal rights for all Americans, blocking scientific research, and of course eroding the value of an education attainable in public schools.

Btw, the things I mentioned which inspire anger and frustration don't just affect atheists. There are many Christian groups who feel the same way, as do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and various other groups because the sentiments don't rise from a disagreement over a religion, but rather what's done in its name. I truly wish the whole argument were simply over whether or not there were any gods. If that was all there was to argue, then there'd be little point getting angry.

The brain-dead Liar-For-Jeebus wrote "PhillyChief, we can discuss Intelligent Design versus other theories without entering into religion."

"Intelligent design" are just code words for magical creation and you know it. You also know the designer is a magic god fairy. You also know intelligent design magic is a religious idea. But you said this religious idea can be discussed "without entering into religion".

Question for you G5: Since everyone knows you're lying about intelligent design magic, why do you lie about it anyway? What's the point of lying when everyone already knows you're a liar?

well boby, not EVERYONE laughs at sam. I believe your rant exposes you - have you read any of jhats responses? I believe he disagrees with conservative Christians but he is able to make his points without belittling the opposing viewpoint. I dont believe you have that intellectual capacity.

It's just too easy to say God did it. For the brief time life has existed on earth it's hard for our brains to grasp how it all begun. Many gods have been invented and worshiped. Funny thing is, no matter what one's belief is and what time period anyone has ever lived on earth, the majority of everyone else would disagree with your belief. While everyone thinks their belief is the correct belief. As time marches on and our knowledge grows, it becomes a little bit easier to put it all together and put aside some of the crazy superstitions. Current theoretical physicist whose mind has spent most of his life trying to understand the universe and helped shape science current view said:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Hey Phil - what? Try and take it down a couple of notches. We are just mere common folk out here in middle America.

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise."

Sam,

I think part of your motivation is correct in seeing a militant atheism on the part of some. Every crowd has its rabble-rousers, though. And you cannot group all atheists together. Christians do have common beliefs; atheists don't.

Just to illustrate this point, many atheists became atheists in an act of rebellion. They saw the problems various religions around the world were causing, and decided the core of the belief must not be true. Even Jesus encouraged us to judge a tree by its fruit, and organized Christianity has a terrible record (the Dark Ages, the Crusades, burning witches, persecuting non-believers, killing "fags", supporting Israel in every war because "they're gonna' be with Jesus soon ...) I know religions do lots of good too, but you cannot deny the evil that has been carried out in God's name. This does give people a good reason, a sane reason, to rebel. Other atheists were born in atheist households and they may not be so "anti"-theistic. And there are other cases as well . . .

So, you cannot paint all atheists as if they share some common goal. Atheists simply don't believe the religious stories that you and other theists do.

About religion in schools and government and all, Christianity permeates American culture. Nobody needs a state-sponsored school to find out about Christianity. Science, on the other hand, does not have a thousand-plus year old system of getting its beliefs out. And science can be changed. If you want to quibble about evolutionary theory, you can go out and collect fossils or do genetic research, write up your paper, submit it for review to the scientific publications, argue back and fourth, and get your view heard. You can change science, but you have to go through the peer-review process. This is open to all. Religion is not. The tenets were written thousands of years ago, and we cannot change them today. So, there is a freedom in science. It benefits society. Education is the way to bring science forward for all society -- and for the betterment of science itself.

Religion also has a dominant role in society. It does not need protecting. The historically repressed other religions and non-religious, on the other hand, do need protecting from people who have shown over the centuries that they are perfectly willing to repress other beliefs. That is why America was formed. Freedom. Asking for Christianity to be put into schools in an official way is ultimately un-American. And Christianity does not even need the school system.

As far as evolution and science teaching undermining religious belief, here you may be right. And I think this has to be the crux, pardon the pun, of your argument. Unfortunately for all those Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, who believe that God created Adam and Eve, science is going to show that belief is simply not true. It is a religious tale, a legend, from our deep past. It is a belief that was OK in its day, but it cannot survive the daylight of open investigation. There is no mystery in all that. Literalism in religious belief will be wiped out by science. Metaphorical belief, on the other hand, may survive and even thrive. Humans seem to need a religion. But when that religion starts demanding that everyone agree and dissenters be put to death, then the belief itself becomes the problem.

Greg

sameldridge:

"Science in America has been corrupted by God haters and money. Science cannot be trusted because most of what passes for Science today has political motivations."

I guess all human institutions are corrupted to a greater or lesser degree -- especially by money. However, "science" includes many disciplines that have no "agenda" at all when it comes to God. You think chemists are trying to prove or disprove God's existence? How about robotics? Optical scientists? Yeah, they're all out trying to show there is no God ;-)

The truth is science is remarkably corruption free when compared with organized religion. Science has its own system of checks and balances. And if anyone tries to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes, they will be exposed in rapid order. The occasional stories of cheating in science show this. If you make a claim, someone will soon try to replicate your experiment, and if they can't, then your hypothesis/theory is in trouble.

Where is this self-correction in religion?

And you standing on the outside saying science is too corrupt to be trusted just makes you out to be the "smartest guy in the room" knowing better than scientists what science is all about.

Scientists are not anti-religion; they just want to find the best, most comprehensive explanations for their observations. No one has come up with a testable God hypothesis. Since you are so smart, maybe you can let us all know how to go about including God in science. If you can do better, the world waits to hear your wonderful ideas . . . I'm not holding my breath, though.

In the end, I'm sorry to say, this seems to be going nowhere. You proudly don't understand science, and you stubbornly paint all atheists as being the same -- and you totally failed to address the distinctions I drew before between the different types of atheists.

It would be better to start over than to try and fix what you've said here.

G5,

I'm not sure that I see the logical fallacy there. (I am aware of the meaning of reification) Science is a framework of ideas. It is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" (dictionary.com)

Science is also colloquially used to refer to the scientific community and branches of scientific study. As in "all of science agrees"

Christianity is similar, it is both a framework of beliefs and ideas, but is also used to refer to it's membership.

Reification as a logical fallacy is typically only avoided in a purely logical argument to avoid hyperbole. It is frequently used in common discourse (including blogs!) to present ideas. And typically the label is applied to things like "justice is blind" and "she holds my affection". So if we argue semantics, maybe greg should have said "the scientific community" instead of just "science".

As far as the politicization of science. I agree, it has gotten ridiculous. But it is not the fault of scientists, but politicians. At this point, the majority of the scientific community agrees that global climate change is an issue, and most agree that humans are at least partly to blame. However, it's not science's job (or should I say, the scientific community's job) to force policy changes. That falls to the politicians, and that is where things get screwed up.

Scientists are supposed to collect evidence, formulate explanations, and publish results objectively. They are not required to push laws, regulations, etc. Some scientists do, especially those who work in the government (for instance, scientists working at the EPA). Some scientists outside of government choose to lend their voices to causes and pushes for policy changes. But it's the job of politicians to take the scientific findings, are create or change public policy to best reflect the truth exposed by science. This is where the problem lies.

All too frequently, politicians champion the cause like they are fully responsible for the data (Gore). Or some politicians who don't like the findings of the scientific community find the scientists in the tiny minority of those who disagree (or worse, find people who are not actually scientists) and they give them a mouthpiece of dissent that is disproportionately loud to their size in the scientific community.

Yes, not everyone who call themselves scientists are actually scientists.

And yes, many scientists are Christians. But many more are atheists, especially if you only include "hard-science" fields in the counting (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc), and discount "soft-sciences" (Sociology, Psychology, etc). And if you only count scientists with higher standings (such as the Nat. Academy of Sciences), there is an even higher percentage of non-believers.

And yes, I realize I probably used the word "science" somewhere in my post where I should have said, "scientists" or "scientific community". But this is a debate in a blog's comments section. I don't think we need to get our underwear in a bunch over what amounts to petty semantics.

And please, don't respond with analysis of reification. I'm aware of what it is. And you could make a case that it's being used here. But I don't think the use really damages greg's points.

G5,

I simply don't agree that our nation was founded on a belief in a deity, or the belief system that espouses.

There is not a single reference to a deity in the constitution. If this country was founded on a belief system, would it not be mentioned in the founding document?

To preempt a rebuttal:

The Declaration mentions a creator.

The Declaration of Independence is not the founding document of our government. The declaration was signed in 1776, the constitution in 1791. 15 years apart. There was a wholly different constitution and government in that period (see Articles of Confederation).

The founders/framers were students of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment emphasized that rights and laws could be derived from reason.

I would not deny the good that comes of religion. Individuals like the venerable Dr. King, people who fought for justice and equality and were motivated and strengthened by their religion. But I would argue that there is also a cost. The Crusades. The Inquisition.

And if you say that these costs all come from the past, that they were perversions of religion. I point towards the injustices of today. The marginalization of minorities like atheists and homosexuals. Groups who have been demonized by religion. The attack on science in our schools. The abuses and corruptions of those in power (molestation, theft, etc)

And I'm curious about your problem with secular humanism? Is it your position that humans only have ethics and morals because of god? Would you assert that there is no rational basis for humans to derive ethics and morals from reason and logic?

Navyblue,

I've given the site a quick look over. I will be certain to check out the site in more detail when I get a chance.

Much of what I found on the site so far displays the religious convictions of some of the founders through quotes and citations.

I would assert that it is equally easy to find quotes that support a different view of their faiths and intent for the country. One that would make you question whether or not they were Christian in nature.

I would point again to the treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams. He was also quoted as saying "This would be the best of all worlds if there was no religion in it".

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Jefferson

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man"

-Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches"

-Franklin

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed"

- Adams

We can also see some of their opinions in their writing. Thomas Paine wrote a critique on the Christian religion (and an argument for Deism) in "The Age of Reason".

Jefferson re-wrote the gospels, removing Jesus' claims to divinity, as well as his miracles.

The faiths of the founding father's was probably more complicated than we can ascertain from their writings and quotations. I would never assert that some of them were not Christian. Nor would I assert that they were all Christian. What I would claim, is that they set up a system of government that was neutral (secular) in regard to religion.

I don't need to look at wallbuilders.com to know that god is not mentioned (or even alluded to) in the US Constitution.

The declaration is a different matter (not being a legal document). But even in the declaration, the deity is referred to as "nature's god" and the "creator". Is this referencing the christian god? Or the deist god? If the christian god, why no mention of Jesus?

I believe that the founders formed a system of government that does not require religion to function properly. And that they specifically set up a barrier between the church and the state to protect them from each other.

Were they hopeful that morals instilled by religion would help us get along and form a better country? YES!

But did they think that was the only way the country would become better? NO!

Did they build a system of laws on Christianity? NO!

Did they endorse one faith over any other (in respect to government) NO!

G5,

So there can not be Christian groups? Churches are not Christian groups? Are you trying to make a distinction between a "group of christians" and a "christian group"? I suppose I can understand that, but I don't see what it does to invalidate any points I have made.

A group is not a "hypothetical construct". A hypothetical construct is: "A conjectured entity, process, or event that is not observed directly but is assumed to explain an observable phenomenon." (encyclopedia.com)

A group is not "conjectured". It exists and can be observed and referred to directly.

You said: "Groups proclaiming to be Christian are not". I suppose that if make an overly-literal interpretation of the sentence and declare the the group itself is not Christian, but that the members are Christian. However we still call it a "Christian group" in vernacular as it is easier to say than "A group comprised of Christian members".

This is an extremely low threshold to set for reification. By your definition, anyone who refers to any group of people instead of individual members has committed a logical fallacy.

You yourself have referred to "Liberals/Leftists" as wanting to overthrow America. By your own definition of reification, you have used it. To adhere to your own standards, you should not refer to the group as a whole, "Liberal/leftists are not interested in science..." but as individuals ("Some Members of the Left do not care about science".

And I would say that everyone that speaks the english language has "an affinity" to "lump people together". It is a method we use to simplify our speech. By your definition, you cannot assert that any group is responsible for their actions.

And it is not stereotyping when you are refer to the group as having a trait that the majority of the group has (or that a large percentage of the group has, in some cases). You can say that "blacks want social equality". It might technically be fallacious (you can't speak for EVERY black person), but in general it's true.

You can say "Chinese people are smaller than us (Caucasians)", and it's technically fallacious (think Yao Ming). But statistically individuals of Chinese descent are smaller than people of european descent. Is just how we talk!

The Nazi's didn't kill 6 million Jews, members of the Nazi party killed 6 million jews.

The United States isn't killing terrorists in Iraq, specific citizens of the US are killing terrorists in Iraq. ETC...

Do you see what I mean?

I'm not clumping all Christians together with the people who kill gays and picket funerals. I don't think I ever said anything to remotely indicate that I did.

Even at the end of your post, you say "Christians don't drink the Koolaid" Are you not referring to an entire group of people and attributing a specific attribute to them. Can you say that there are NO christians who "assassinate their self-concept"?

You have chastized me for making generalizations about Christians, yet you have not yet accounted for your OWN generalizations about "Liberals/Leftists". Additionally, you have not responded to my statement that reification is not a fallacy of reasoning, but a fallacy of ambiguity, and that by your definition, we are both guilty.

My responses to your paragraphs (paragraph 1 = P1, etc)

P1 & P2)

If Christians are defined by God, and not man, how can we call anyone a Christian? How could anyone even call themselves a Christian? Unless you have spoken to God and he said "G5, you ARE a Christian", how would you know that you're a Christian? It's not like God is down here picking you guys out. By your definition, no one could call themselves a Christian, until they died and met god. I'm not sure most Christians would like your definition.

I know that it's a feeling you have, and something that is deeply personal, but the people who you do not consider Christians (stone gays, etc) say they have those feelings, and many of them would make the claim that you are not a Christian, because you don't support their actions. So who do we believe? I of course would tend to disagree with the people bombing abortion clinics, but in the interest of fairness, lets consult the dictionary

"Christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." (Christianity meaning the protestant, catholic, and eastern orthodox churches).

As far as I am concerned, if you believe that Jesus was the messiah and the son of God, I consider you a christian. You definition makes no sense to use in our world. It would be impossible to call anyone a christian. If you want to shift the definition around to something else, it's simply not a good way to argue. Following the same rules, I could redefine "liberal" or "leftist" to have a completely different meaning.

P3) My assertions? I have REPEATEDLY said that I am NOT asserting that ALL Christians act like the ones that picket funerals etc. Just that Christianity has a small and vocal minority that does so. And additionally that the christian majority is one of the reasons that homosexuals experience so much bigotry.

And your example of black gang members is not the best example of your point. In my experience, most gang members who are supporting Obama are not doing so because of his politics, but because of his race.

A better example would be radical environmentalists (or Tree Huggers, as you may know them). They espouse a liberal philosophy, yet go to radical lengths to achieve it. Attacking whaling ships, eco-terrorism, etc.

P4) I would state that the people you refer to as liberals do not necessarily ALL have like minded ideas. Many are against the war, some are for it. Many are staunch environmentalists, some couldn't care less. ETC. (There is no book or charter that liberals all read to get their ideas). However, I will accept your labeling of all of us with these ideals as it meets my standards. Yes, the majority of liberals want to end the war and are concerned about our effect on the environment. SO IT IS OK TO GENERALIZE.

You assert that the difference is that "Liberals are defined by a collective of like minded people". And you can't see the conflict here? Christians are in the same situation (or even more so). Most Christians share common values and ideas. (not to say ALL, but a majority). You literally have a book that you all use to help guide your lives. If you are going to make the claim that liberals are all like minded people, you certainly have to accept the same for christians.

You have said that Christianity is about individualism. Liberalism is defined as a class of philosophies geared towards individual liberty. Individual liberty as in "everyone is allowed to do their own thing". Anyone who believes in individual liberty and the right of self determination is a liberal. The word "Leftist" is a different matter, as it actually DOES connote certain political positions on topics.

P5 & P6) I couldn't agree more. Groupthink is a terrible thing. It's one of the primary reasons I do not tend to associate strongly with ANY groups. I only identify as a leftist/liberal talking to you because it seems that your definition of those terms applies to me (it is a pretty broad definition). I don't belong to any liberal groups. We have no weekly meeting for liberals. I would consider myself a liberal because the definition applies to me, not because I'm associating with a larger group. Sounds like the Hoffer book could be interesting, I have read similar works before. I might add it to my reading list.

P7) Ahhh, but here is the tricky thing. How do you know that the "god hates fags" people have not all came to the same conclusion separately and formed a "cooperative endeavor" to further their goals? I think, in all likelihood, they did not, but I cannot be sure. We derive our values from the people that affect our lives (parents, friends, neighbors, etc.).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are against abortion. How did you come to that conclusion? Did someone tell you it was wrong? Did the bible tell you it was wrong? Or perhaps, you just KNOW that it's morally wrong (which is perfectly acceptable). These are the exact same ways the "God hates fags" people acquired their views.

P8) What are you referring to as sick?