| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nimitz
Guest
Local time: 5:11 AM
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
 |
|
Americanthinker.com
Letter to a Popular Atheist
By Steve Alderman
In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Sam Harris, an outspoken atheist and author of "Letter to a Christian Nation" once again presents the case that the moderate believers shield the fundamentalists from public criticism and analysis. Although much of his diatribe against faith is simply a regurgitation of historical atheism, this one idea is a new twist on the Enlightenment. Harris presents the case that if we take the Bible literally and fully, that the God of the Old Testament would be rejected outright by any thinking person. In his editorial supporting Congressman Pete Stark, he likens him to a modern day Cicero:
"Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham - the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo."
Harris' complaint is that honest public discourse on the subject of faith is forbidden for political and social reasons, and that it is time to call faith what it is -- a delusion. It isn't clear to me just who is preventing Dr. Harris from exercising his First Amendment rights, but obviously he feels threatened by the forces of Medieval Darkness. Popular culture and popular media are much more likely to condemn James Dobson than Sam Harris; nevertheless, Harris hopes to rally the broad base of closet atheists to speak out and denounce all religions as pathological mythology. Go for it, Sam.
Let's assume for a moment that Harris is correct, that is, believers are delusional and misguided, faith is false, God does not exist, and the greatest threat to human survival is the irreconcilable conflict between the major world religions and their inflexible and delusional beliefs. What then is the basis for his desire to save humanity from itself? At the end of his screed, Harris says:
"There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith - but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical - and even spiritual - without pretending to know things they do not know."
So what does it mean to be ethical, or especially spiritual, with an atheistic worldview? The underlying premise of Harris' disdain for believers is that delusional beliefs threaten the existence of mankind. What are these "better reasons" for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the weak? How does empiricism support the concept of compassion? From an evolutionary point of view, what is the advantage of helping the poor, feeding the hungry or defending the weak?
Nietzsche had a more rational answer for a God-less world, and his atheism was at least intellectually honest. The superman does not need an objective moral standard -- he makes his own and imposes it on the weaker. So it is that Harris falls by his own words; he pretends to know things he does not know. He does not know what is good or what is evil; he only knows what is socially normative. He does not know anything spiritual, because the spirit is imaginary, or at best a mental construct.
Francis Schaeffer said that secular man can only live in the lower storey (secular world) by borrowing from the upper storey (spiritual world). In other words, atheists can only talk about ethics because they are immersed in a social structure sustained by the "mythology" they reject. They borrow ethics from God and then claim that these ethics exist without a transcendent law-giving God to uphold them. What the atheists cannot explain is how they justify their ethical standards.
What does it mean to say that compassion is deeper than religion? Perhaps we should adopt the behavioral model and realize that in a world without God, compassion does not really mean anything, just like freedom and dignity. Maybe compassion is behavioral conditioning and has evolutionary value, but if so, we can hardly call this deep. It is worse than shallow, because it is something we pretend to know which we do not really know. We only respond to stimuli.
I agree with Dr. Harris that compassion is deeper than religion. Compassion is as deep as God, and begins and ends with God. It cannot be any deeper or higher than that. Perhaps Dr. Harris should talk to Jesus; if I am not mistaken, I think He had a distaste for religion as well.
===========================================================================================
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 2:11 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
one thing to say to all of that:
prove your God exists.
THEN, we'll start talking about its merits.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SalsaShark
has filled in a custom rank.
Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 1036
Local time: 5:11 AM
Location: Regina SK CAN
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
That poor guy would be a mass murderer if it wasn't for God!
_________________
"Oh bury me, far away please, bury me." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Castaa
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 2211
Local time: 11:11 AM
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep lame.
| Quote: | Nietzsche had a more rational answer for a God-less world, and his atheism was at least intellectually honest. The superman does not need an objective moral standard -- he makes his own and imposes it on the weaker. So it is that Harris falls by his own words; he pretends to know things he does not know. He does not know what is good or what is evil; he only knows what is socially normative. He does not know anything spiritual, because the spirit is imaginary, or at best a mental construct.
Francis Schaeffer said that secular man can only live in the lower storey (secular world) by borrowing from the upper storey (spiritual world). In other words, atheists can only talk about ethics because they are immersed in a social structure sustained by the "mythology" they reject. They borrow ethics from God and then claim that these ethics exist without a transcendent law-giving God to uphold them. What the atheists cannot explain is how they justify their ethical standards.
What does it mean to say that compassion is deeper than religion? Perhaps we should adopt the behavioral model and realize that in a world without God, compassion does not really mean anything, just like freedom and dignity. Maybe compassion is behavioral conditioning and has evolutionary value, but if so, we can hardly call this deep. It is worse than shallow, because it is something we pretend to know which we do not really know. We only respond to stimuli. |
Come on. This is such a tired line of reasoning. The bible is full of absolutely horrible philosophy and examples of "morality". Yet most Christians choose to ignore these words of "god". How then does a Christian do this? There is a different standard being applied to judge that isn't found in religion. It's humans carving out that higher standard from the words "god". GMFB.
_________________
MY YouTube Videos 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 7:11 PM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
What Steve Alderman and his ilk fail to realize is that it takes a "moral compass" to accept the rules in the Bible in the first place, how else would you know if they were good or bad in the first place? Oopps, there goes causality.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4945
Local time: 1:11 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| Nimitz wrote: |
"There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith - but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical - and even spiritual - without pretending to know things they do not know."
So what does it mean to be ethical, or especially spiritual, with an atheistic worldview? The underlying premise of Harris' disdain for believers is that delusional beliefs threaten the existence of mankind. What are these "better reasons" for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the weak? How does empiricism support the concept of compassion? From an evolutionary point of view, what is the advantage of helping the poor, feeding the hungry or defending the weak?
|
The author makes a good point here. Why is one way to give food better than another? If I am hungry and somebody gives me food, my stomach doesn't care if the person's motivation was spiritual or atheistic.
During times of emergency I've always thought we have an innate equality and unity. The injured atheist wants to have his wounds taken care of and doesn't state that only an atheist doctor may do so. The same is true of the theist.
It is the mind that has the limitations suggesting one reason for the attitude is better than another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4903
Local time: 3:11 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: | | Nimitz wrote: |
"There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith - but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical - and even spiritual - without pretending to know things they do not know."
So what does it mean to be ethical, or especially spiritual, with an atheistic worldview? The underlying premise of Harris' disdain for believers is that delusional beliefs threaten the existence of mankind. What are these "better reasons" for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the weak? How does empiricism support the concept of compassion? From an evolutionary point of view, what is the advantage of helping the poor, feeding the hungry or defending the weak?
|
The author makes a good point here. Why is one way to give food better than another? If I am hungry and somebody gives me food, my stomach doesn't care if the person's motivation was spiritual or atheistic.
|
Not really. If you're hungry, two people walk up to you, and one of them holds a gun to the other guy's head and forces him to give you food through threat of death, are you really going to appreciate it as much as another guy giving you food just out of kindness and empathy? Or on the flipside, same two guys come up and one tells the other that if he gives you $10, then he'll get a grand later. Sure, you get the help either way, but there's a difference between self-serving charity and actual kindness, and that's the motivational difference between being good to get to heaven and avoid hell compared to being good for your own reasons. As my old sig quote from Einstein says, "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redraiderdude187
The Madcap Laugher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 1152
Local time: 2:11 PM
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
This article just represents the out and out discrimination towards atheists. Think of the outrage if a major journalist criticized a popular Christian apologist and his/her viewpoints. I'm not saying that this journalist does not have his right to write whatever he pleases, but this article just illustrates the double standard that is so prevalent in America these days.
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4945
Local time: 1:11 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: | | ShaSha wrote: | | Nimitz wrote: |
"There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith - but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical - and even spiritual - without pretending to know things they do not know."
So what does it mean to be ethical, or especially spiritual, with an atheistic worldview? The underlying premise of Harris' disdain for believers is that delusional beliefs threaten the existence of mankind. What are these "better reasons" for helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and defending the weak? How does empiricism support the concept of compassion? From an evolutionary point of view, what is the advantage of helping the poor, feeding the hungry or defending the weak?
|
The author makes a good point here. Why is one way to give food better than another? If I am hungry and somebody gives me food, my stomach doesn't care if the person's motivation was spiritual or atheistic.
|
Not really. If you're hungry, two people walk up to you, and one of them holds a gun to the other guy's head and forces him to give you food through threat of death, are you really going to appreciate it as much as another guy giving you food just out of kindness and empathy? Or on the flipside, same two guys come up and one tells the other that if he gives you $10, then he'll get a grand later. Sure, you get the help either way, but there's a difference between self-serving charity and actual kindness, and that's the motivational difference between being good to get to heaven and avoid hell compared to being good for your own reasons. As my old sig quote from Einstein says, "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." |
You have your opinion based on an extreme that is violent. Sorry, my mind doesn't think of worst case scenarios when it comes to helping others. So in the case you mention, it isn't applicable with my example. I was working out of the examples given in the OP and prefer to discuss that. Your idea though fits in very well with yesteryear where sometimes good deeds did have to come from using forcing. So even there I will say that my hunger will be fed equally well if Robin Hood did it by theft or the rich people left it by the wayside. The stomach doesn't care, only the head.
As the author asked I too will ask, how is compassion emperically proven to be better? You won't get an argument from me that giving from the heart is far better than giving from the head for the giver. Since that is subjective though, only I can feel the difference. The person that receives the food or money is going to be happy as long as treatment is neutral. It makes no difference to the receiver, only the giver.
Jesus' teachings in my opinion were referring to this subjective feeling when it comes to giving or loving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4945
Local time: 1:11 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | This article just represents the out and out discrimination towards atheists. Think of the outrage if a major journalist criticized a popular Christian apologist and his/her viewpoints. I'm not saying that this journalist does not have his right to write whatever he pleases, but this article just illustrates the double standard that is so prevalent in America these days. |
Exactly where do you see discrimination here towards atheists? Harris gets an OP ED in the LA Times and gets to criticize the whole Christian population which would include all Christian apologists. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,671840.story?coll=la-home-commentary
The author quoted above gets to rebuttal in what, the LA Times? No, something called American Thinker. I know the LA Times. Millions know the LA Times. How many know of an internet magazine called the American Thinker?
The only standard here is fame. He who gets a best seller out is going to get more attention in national magazines or newspapers for awhile at least. Especially if it pertains to a recent news issue which in this case it does.
There isn't discrimination towards any atheist. Just debate on two different worldviews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickcopeland648
The Phantom Teabagger
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3021
Local time: 7:11 PM
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| Steve_Alderman wrote: | | Harris presents the case that if we take the Bible literally and fully, that the God of the Old Testament would be rejected outright by any thinking person. |
I agree with Harris. If The Bible were any other novel Yaweh would possibly exhibit many qualities that wold seem to make him the villain...
| Steve_Alderman wrote: | | So what does it mean to be ethical, or especially spiritual, with an atheistic worldview? |
Oh, Christ not this again. This is just more of Xtian "morality from bullying". The only reason people obey big, bad Daddy God is simply because he will punish you if you don't obey. But I'm somewhat sympathetic to the "spiritual atheist" remark. I really don't get that. Still, if some want to view themselves as such, that's their prerogative...
| Steve_Alderman wrote: | | Nietzsche had a more rational answer for a God-less world, and his atheism was at least intellectually honest. The superman does not need an objective moral standard -- he makes his own and imposes it on the weaker. |
Did Nietzsche ever really say anything like that? If anyone knows of a place where he did, please refer me to the book at the section number. Many seem to derive this from the "will to power", but that concept always struck me as being more of a power over the self and related to his notion of self-overcoming. Perhaps he got it from the notion of re-valuating all values. But I don't recall anything regarding imposing on the "weaker". Still, it has been a long time since I last read Freddy...
This might be one of the most common misconceptions of Nietzsche... Or perhaps I'm in error...
| Steve_Alderman wrote: | | Perhaps we should adopt the behavioral model and realize that in a world without God, compassion does not really mean anything, just like freedom and dignity. |
How does freedom mean anything in a Judeo-Christian context? How can it exist when you live under a sovereign God against whose will one cannot act? Isn't he assuming that he assuming he can act freely when in actuality he's no more free than any other marionette?
| Steve_Alderman wrote: | | Perhaps Dr. Harris should talk to Jesus; if I am not mistaken, I think He had a distaste for religion as well. |
I hope Alderman sees the irony in that remark...
| SalsaShark wrote: | | That poor guy would be a mass murderer if it wasn't for God! |
Perhaps. I tend to think that when people say things akin to "so if there were no God what would prevent you from raping?" they are actually admitting that they have no faith in their own ability to behave ethically for its own sake...
| Sal1981 wrote: | | What Steve Alderman and his ilk fail to realize is that it takes a "moral compass" to accept the rules in the Bible in the first place, how else would you know if they were good or bad in the first place? Oopps, there goes causality. |
Exactly! You are that which most closely resembles "the man"...
| ShaSha wrote: | | As the author asked I too will ask, how is compassion emperically proven to be better? |
I tend to agree with you. If you're starving, then food is food regardless of the source. I DO have problems with strings that might be attached, as I suspect the main motivation in many cases is not compassion, rather conversion. Christopher Hitchens (an author with whom I don't usually agree, even though he can be funny) wrote a rather detailed discussion of Mother Teresa entitled (love this title) "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" that rather forcefully argues just this point with regard to her activities in Calcutta.
Before you counter saying that we don't know for sure about food aid, no we don't. But we do see a history of this in other Christian "charities". I wonder what they would do if one simply ate the food or received the medicine and told them to shove the sales pitch up their asses...
_________________
“I think it’s also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
-- George W. Bush on Clinton's involvement in Kosovo, 1999
"Syphilis is the algebra of infection."
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
Can't... fight... any... longer... must.. help.. bunny.. achieve.. global.. domination.. All.. hail... bunny...
-------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BarkAtTheMoon
O Captain, my Captain
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 4903
Local time: 3:11 PM
Location: Wilmington, DE
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: |
You have your opinion based on an extreme that is violent. Sorry, my mind doesn't think of worst case scenarios when it comes to helping others. So in the case you mention, it isn't applicable with my example. I was working out of the examples given in the OP and prefer to discuss that. Your idea though fits in very well with yesteryear where sometimes good deeds did have to come from using forcing. So even there I will say that my hunger will be fed equally well if Robin Hood did it by theft or the rich people left it by the wayside. The stomach doesn't care, only the head.
|
What's your opinion on what hell is like then, if not violent and unpleasant? That's the whole point of the OP, that people doing good only because of their religion, aka because God tells them what to do to get heaven or else go to hell, is a lesser moral position than just doing it for your own reasons. It couldn't be a more appropriate analogy, unless I'm just not explaining it right or missing something.
| Quote: | As the author asked I too will ask, how is compassion emperically proven to be better? You won't get an argument from me that giving from the heart is far better than giving from the head for the giver. Since that is subjective though, only I can feel the difference. The person that receives the food or money is going to be happy as long as treatment is neutral. It makes no difference to the receiver, only the giver.
|
I don't know that it emperically is any better, although it lessens the likelihood that the person is a ginormous hypocritical douchebag like so many theists are. I think that's really the whole point that Harris is making. It's not just about how the person getting help is happy either way, but it's the larger point that atheists are just as, if not moreso, likely to be decent, honest, caring people in spite of the villification and claims otherwise from Christians that we're all evil, devil-worshipping, baby eaters and they hold the monopoly on morality and righteous behavior.
| Quote: |
Jesus' teachings in my opinion were referring to this subjective feeling when it comes to giving or loving. |
Some of his teachings, yes, you're probably right. Doesn't change the fact that hell is a NT addition to the bible and the NT points straight to the wrath of God OT type stuff, nor does it change the fact that the subjective feeling is really why people give or love regardless of belief in God. The belief that love and goodness only come from God leads directly to the intolerance and proselytizing that make theists so freaking delightful to have around. As rickcopeland648 mentioned, so often the giving comes with the sales pitch, and usually with the aforementioned threat of hell and reward of heaven as the main selling points.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin
"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4945
Local time: 1:11 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| rickcopeland648 wrote: |
| ShaSha wrote: | | As the author asked I too will ask, how is compassion emperically proven to be better? |
I tend to agree with you. If you're starving, then food is food regardless of the source. I DO have problems with strings that might be attached, as I suspect the main motivation in many cases is not compassion, rather conversion. Christopher Hitchens (an author with whom I don't usually agree, even though he can be funny) wrote a rather detailed discussion of Mother Teresa entitled (love this title) "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" that rather forcefully argues just this point with regard to her activities in Calcutta.
Before you counter saying that we don't know for sure about food aid, no we don't. But we do see a history of this in other Christian "charities". I wonder what they would do if one simply ate the food or received the medicine and told them to shove the sales pitch up their asses... |
I too have a problem with strings attached. I do not suspect the main motivation is conversion because I've just always seen the glass as half full. More important is I've spent my whole adult life going for facts and away from generalizations and assumptions. It's hard to do it all of the time but I'll stick with it here. So instead of teaching that all people of religions do good because they want to go to heaven or get conversions, I would rather educate people to investigate or ask each group why are you doing this? I don't ever recall being taught in my church to give so I could go to heaven. I was taught that our reward would be given to us in heaven but not that it would get us there. Only not sinning would get us there. I didn't even have the "Jesus is my Savior" card 
I really just taught myself or it was instinctual. I was on the receiving end of somebody else's giving many different times through my growing up. One of the dresses given to me I wore til it wore out because I loved it so and was so greatful it was given to me. Other clothes that were given to me, I liked some and didn't like others. I ddn't like it when one of my classmates said that used to be her dress. I'm not sure why since I don't think a first grader knows to be embarassed about something like that. But I argued with her and told her no, I got it somewhere else and concoted the story of where I do know that the people that gave the clothes weren't out to convert our family because we were already the same religion. I also know that as I grew older I was never made fun of because most of my clothes were not the latest style. I was shy about it sometimes but never did anybody mock me and I had friends in all classes of wealth. By then I was also getting some original clothes bought for me throughout the year other than at Christmas.
Sometimes I needed a ride and was greatful when somebody stopped and offered one. As I got older, gratitude turned to suspicion as my head started getting filled with ideas of what possible motive did that person had for offering me that ride?
There are more Christians than Mother Theresa being affected by the blanket statement of atheists who think we theists only give to get to heaven. I don't know the facts about Mother Therese and I won't go there because she is only one person. I certainly wouldn't suggest that all atheists are like Madlyn Murray O'Hair and I like the woman in spite of her hatred. Madlyn was not angry because she was an atheist, she was an angry person. If Mother Therese did wrong, that is one person. I do not hold anybody above anybody else. She is not a Saint to me nor do I think she is a greater person than Madlyn because she gave her life to the poor. She did what she wanted to do with her life and Madlyn did what she wanted.
I can give you dozens more personal examples where I received but there weren't any strings attached. I too give generously where I can with no strings attached. Long before there was a movie called Pay It Forward, I gave and when they wanted to pay me back, I asked them to not pay me back but to give similarly to another in that same situation if possible.
I agree that compassion can be an innate event and don't care to argue whether it is because god is in all of us and compassion is a form of us recognizing our unity. Or the atheist way is fine by me also that it is chemicals triggered by something. I will take the Christian's giving, the Muslim's giving, the native in the Jungle's giving and call it all good because that is what it is when we don't have our minds indoctrinated as to possible motive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4945
Local time: 1:11 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| BarkAtTheMoon wrote: |
What's your opinion on what hell is like then, if not violent and unpleasant? That's the whole point of the OP, that people doing good only because of their religion, aka because God tells them what to do to get heaven or else go to hell, is a lesser moral position than just doing it for your own reasons. It couldn't be a more appropriate analogy, unless I'm just not explaining it right or missing something.
|
I don't think the whole article is that people do good only because their religion. I don't think there is a lesser or a better moral position. Harris does, the author above questions and evaluates from different views. He allows even in his thinking that it might just be chemical but he believes it is all God and that is his right. Note that he is mentioning that Jesus too was against religion. So there are many variables on how and where compassion comes from. I say in the final giving, the receiver doesn't care as long as there aren't any strings attached.
As I mentioned in my last post above I was never one of the Christians taught that I would go to hell if I didn't give.
If you want my idea of a possible hell in relation to the OP, it would be one where nobody gave because they were worried about what the other person thought was their reasons for giving Or it would be being told as a child that there are people who give only because it is their religion and they aren't as good as "we" are because we give from our compassion. I think that too would be a hellatious teaching to a child.
| Quote: |
I don't know that it emperically is any better, although it lessens the likelihood that the person is a ginormous hypocritical douchebag like so many theists are. I think that's really the whole point that Harris is making. It's not just about how the person getting help is happy either way, but it's the larger point that atheists are just as, if not moreso, likely to be decent, honest, caring people in spite of the villification and claims otherwise from Christians that we're all evil, devil-worshipping, baby eaters and they hold the monopoly on morality and righteous behavior. |
That moreso is exactly what Harris is about when you read the article in the LA Times. He's not satisfied with debating facts but rather just throws in a lot of opinions and generalizations in and "knows" that his way is better and yet has no emperical evidence. The author is asking for evidence since we certainly couldn't have Harris basing it on faith now could we?
Nobody has called atheists all evil etc. above mentioned adjectives. In fact the OP says that there would probably be more people in Christiandom for Pete Stark than for a certain Christian.
| Quote: |
Some of his teachings, yes, you're probably right. Doesn't change the fact that hell is a NT addition to the bible and the NT points straight to the wrath of God OT type stuff, nor does it change the fact that the subjective feeling is really why people give or love regardless of belief in God. The belief that love and goodness only come from God leads directly to the intolerance and proselytizing that make theists so freaking delightful to have around. As rickcopeland648 mentioned, so often the giving comes with the sales pitch, and usually with the aforementioned threat of hell and reward of heaven as the main selling points. |
The opposite is also true. Teaching that anybody who does have a belief in God is deluded and teaching that they are all inferior as a result of that, is simply reverse discrimination. It isn't lifting the atheist. It is lowering the atheist if anybody thinks that is all atheist's views. I tend to think there are many theists like myself that see Harris as somebody who has his own concotions of life just as we all do and nobody has absolute anything for another.
Look at Harris' title, "God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional."
Religions teaching that we are born sinners can suggest worthlessness to the listener. Harris and his like suggesting delusional, are possibly suggesting worthlessness to the listener. Only the "saved" in the religions might feel good about themselves and only the atheist in Harris' view might feel good about themselves.
There is no gain with Harris view or anybody who has just one view.
I don't mind his view, it brings out discussions such as the OP brought out that author and brings out the discussions in each of us. I don't agree with a fundie view of anybody and that includes Harris in this situation. I know most atheists don't hold that view either because they have loved ones who are theist who are intelligent and kind and giving.
Harris and other extreme writers know that controversy sells. He is getting his 20 minutes of fame. We'll let history be the final judge on whether his motives were any more altruistic than those that he accuses. That he has Stark going down in history "by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo."
We have many and have had many good leaders who have had their own world views that included a god and yet have really gone down in history as monumental heroes. That Harris is predicting the same for Stark is laughable. Of course as an author of fiction under the guise of documentaton, I will allow him poetic license |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12842
Local time: 11:11 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: Letter to a Popular Atheist |
|
|
| Nimitz wrote: | | Popular culture and popular media are much more likely to condemn James Dobson than Sam Harris; nevertheless . . . |
Nice naked assertion; nevertheless . . . 
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
