« more discussions

• 

  God Is Not Great

  Hi Group.....so glad you're here.
  
  Hawkin's book is driving me nuts. It's rekindled the fire of my adolescent atheism and has me fixing for a fight. Problem is that like a few of you here, I kinda believe in god, which is pretty funny when you think about it. I read a line in a book recently where the female protagonist says, "I'm a lesbian in all but sexual preference," and that's pretty much how I feel in re the god thing.

  limpet55 started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  limpet55 

  Did I say Hawkins?? I meant Hitchens. Hitchens. oops.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  jennynoel 

  I'm confused... you don't want to have sex with God?

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 4 replies

  • 

    limpet55 

    hahaha

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Ida_Ming_Tao 

    I admit it. I'd tag that.
    
    I mean come on...

    posted 10 months ago. ( reply )

  • Ida_Ming_Tao removed this reply 10 months ago.

  • 

    Ida_Ming_Tao 

    If the nuns get play with him, why don't we?
    
    He's already married to 50,000 of them.
    
    What's one more night, give or take, in infinity?

    posted 10 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Symmulacra 

  Thanks. That made me laugh.
  
  I've found that my adolescent atheism has been rekindled by encountering religious morons on the net. That said, I've also encountered a large number of religious non-morons and have even had pleasant somewhat sane discussions with them.
  
  I've also felt bothered by certain agnostics. I feel like I'm kicking down a straw man here but I want to do it anyway. Have you heard this argument?
  
  Agnostic: Atheists are just as narrow minded as Christians. They think they know the answer. But, nobody can know the answer.
  
  The claim that nobody can know the answer is a strong claim. It requires justification just as much as the atheist claim and the Christian claim. Atheists do provide justification for disbelief in many particular (defined) gods.
  
  If an agnostic were to say, "I don't know. I just haven't thought about it much." I'd be willing to say that's a reasonable position (though I'd also be inclined to think that they're more atheistic than theistic.
  
  I hope you enjoyed my hopping up on a soapbox. I haven't yet read that book. I shall look for it though.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    limpet55 

    Atheists have taken on the awesome and impossible task of trying to prove a negative....which always leaves you sounding like an idiot, or worse--a spoilsport. While it's true that no one can know all the answers, that doesn't mean that we can't know that the supernatural explanation is probably not the right one. But this is all too subtle and complex for most believers....and the smart ones have made some adjustments to their understanding of language.....with an attenuated definition of god that's skirts the issue entirely. It's like people who say, "Of course, I'm not FOR abortion, I'm for choice." Well, sometimes you have to have the courage to say, "you know what? I'm for abortion, especially if that means I'm not against it."
    
    It's 8:41AM and I've exhausted myself. This group is great.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B (edited)

    Regarding "atheists" can't know the answer. There are several responses to this. I most often go with "You can't know that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster either".
    
    But what I generally prefer to respond with is this. There are probably thousands of different religions, many of which (like Christian, Islam, Judaism) claim to be the "one true" religion.
    
    Well, if there are (or have been) thousands of religions, and only one of them can be true, we can "know" this: AT LEAST 99.99% of these religions can not be the true religion.
    
    One of the great mysteries about religion is that theists rarely seem to contemplate this and similar facts. A similar fact would be that even the most devout Christian probably would NOT be a Christian were not for their birth into a family or geography where that religion was practiced. That is, Jerry Falwell would likely have been a Muslim had he been born into a Muslim family, or born in Iran.
    
    

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• removed this reply 1 year ago.

  • 

    Theophania 

    One of the points that Sam Harris and Dawkins both make (and I think Hitchens too but I haven't read his new book yet--just seen/heard various interviews) is that religion gives people a reason to do horrible things and the rest of us are supposed to respect it just because it is based on "faith." I don't mean things like the holocaust, 9/11 or the murderous brothers in Under the Banner of Heaven. I mean more "mundane" horrible things like teaching children that gays are immoral or that having sex outside of marriage will send you to hell or that the world is only 6,000 years old.
    
    In American culture we tiptoe around these issues, repeating the party line that we should respect and tolerate these horrible belief systems. And I'm tired of it. Watching the media try to "respect" and "tolerate" Mitt Romney's faith is maddening. The Book of Mormon simply isn't true! Historical, archeological and even genetic evidence tells us that it's not true. Where's the journalist who will say "You know, if a guy believes this insanity, maybe he shouldn't have his finger on the button"? But we're to "respect" his faith simply because it's faith. As we're supposed to respect our current president's crazy faith.
    
    While I don't know if I agree that a society without a trace of god(s) would be superior, I do think that a society that afforded less respect to religion would be superior to what we have now and on that score I heartily agree with Dawkins.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    limpet55 

    What atheistic gospel? And I so hate the thing about Hitler, Mao and Stalin being atheists....being an atheist doesn't preclude being a total shit and neither does being a theist, so that particular argument is a wash as far as I can see. And I can't think of a single successful "ideal" society, theistic or atheistic (your quotes), seeing as how most of your societies and are lousy with human beings who are notoriously imperfect. (If you get a chance, read Isaiah Berlin's "Crooked Timber of Humanity"). I don't exactly know what you mean by "spirituality", but that's what I was thinking of when I referred to an attenuated definition of god that skirts the issue entirely. And you bet I think the world would be a better place without religion...without going back a skillion years and referring only to the present, I think we'd have less child rape (the catholic religion) more people using birth control (Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews), less AIDS and cervical cancer in young women (see above), fewer religous wars, (Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, more stem cell research, a smarter government and much better TV on Sundays.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Julie Ann 

    I love when people try to use the argument "but Hitler was an Atheist!" as if that makes all Atheists evil.
    
    Maybe mention the fact that Christians, who make up 75% of the American population, also make up 75% of the population of imprisoned criminals. Atheists make up 10% of the American population, but make up 0.2% of the population of imprisoned criminals.
    
    Or tell them that Thomas Edison, Susan B. Anthony and Marie Curie were also Atheists.
    
    I'm a vegetarian and people always say stuff like "But Hitler was a vegetarian!" I always respond with, "So was Gandhi. Your point?" (Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, but it's useless to argue that point. It's like talking to my refrigerator.)

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• removed this reply 1 year ago.

  • 

    krispy3d 

    Let's not get too sensitive now; limpet55 was merely elaborating her point and I fail to see any ill-will or attitude in her post directed at you personally. This is still a very open forum welcoming divergent opinions. The funny thing is that you two aren't that far from agreement.
    
    Still, I must point out that it is quite evident that you, urban_monk, were the first to get simply rude, especially with your parting words. For one who attacks this entire group for being incapable for intelligent exchange (which is plain wrong), you are too quick to resort to personal insult when disagreed with, especially when none has been levied against you. Please, if you wish, nobody here would mind hearing more of your point, as long as you leave the insults out of it. I, for one, am quite curious as to what is the "atheistic gospel" you referred to.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    limpet55 

    My diatribe was directed more at religion than at you, Monk. In recent times I've come to doubt the wisdom my instinctive tolerance towards ideas I think are wrong, and perhaps that came across too strongly in my tone. I hope you don't leave the group and I hope you'll do me the favor of questioning my ideas whenever they swerve off course, which they do often.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • removed this reply 1 year ago.

  • 

    krispy3d 

    I agree with your point precisely, Monk. Indeed it is a myriad of belief systems, regardless of actual content, which are indeed dangerous. It even begs the question as to what, if any, sort of belief system is completely harmless for the masses to abide in, especially given what we know about masses of people, "groupthink", and politics. Are we doomed, regardless of what belief system underlies our national and political cohesion, to be hateful of those outside our group?
    
    I think the problem lies in something you mentioned. "Gospel" is a good word for the opinion if an atheist believes he or she is correct and a theist is wrong. Of course, a truly objective non-believer, it seems to me, cannot claim to know the truth of god, only that it seems unlikely enough to make the notion unworthy of true faith without evidence. So for us truly objective types, who leave a margin of error (I go ahead and call myself an atheist although I suppose I'm not a "7" in Dawkins' scale), what should we "believe" in? What can we stand up against and unite to change if in the end we leave a margin of possibility that we might be wrong? It puts us at a constant disadvantage to always have that caveat. You're right that blind atheism has produced monsters just like blind theism, so I wonder what we should recommend to people who are looking for group unity but are unwilling to claim others as wrong and themselves right.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  aniko 

  Even Dawkins says he's a 6. :-)
  
  I haven't read Hitchens's book, but I can imagine what it's like--I've read many articles by him and heard interviews. Every time someone says Dawkins is arrogant or scathing, I''m thinking, you should read some of this other guy.... He actually wants to get people upset.
  
  I find Dawkins very straight and reasonable in writing, and courteous and downright charming when he speaks.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    deactivated member 

    Aniko, I agree that Hitchens is abrasive and combative. Partly it's just his personality (comes across in interviews) and partly I think it's intentional. He's sick to death of the horrors committed in the name of the gods and he gives example after example of why we should all be sick of it.
    
    Unfortunately, even people who agree with is position find him too stident. I did at first, but the more I think about it, the more I think there's a place for his rather shrill voice today. Dawkins is scholarly, Harris is reasonable, Htichens is pissed off, and looking at the headlines, I think we could all stand to be a little more pissed off. Seems to me that when we find ourselves looking down the barrel of WWIII largely because of an ancient religious feud over an arid piece of real estate, it might be time for someone like Hitchens to call a spade a spade.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B 

    I agree. I don't find Dawkins arrogant nor scathing in his writing. He is certainly strongly "dismissive" but I think that is within the bounds of logical argument, whereas arrogant and scathing exceed those boundaries. I have seen Dawkins be a bit impatient as when Pastor Ted Haggard (yes THAT Ted Haggard) tries to tell Dawkins (an Oxford professor of Biology) what evolutionists believe. I must add that although he seems bothered by Haggard, I expect his reaction is far more courteous than almost any rational person I know might be capable of.
    
    It bothers me that Hitchens seems to be the main spokesperson for atheism. His abrasive style (pardon the pun/irony) only to the choir and he promotes the "angry atheist" myth about atheists being self-conflicted.
    
    I also think that arguments that don't acknowledge the "baby" in the "bathwater" are ineffective. That is, arguing for the elimination of religion based on all the bad things it has caused without any acknowledgment of the good things (charities, morals) it is responsible for, even as a placebo-like effect, just causes the average theist to turn off.

    posted 9 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  limpet55 

  I finally finished the Hitchens book and he has a good point about the monstrous atheists of history....he points out that that they created defacto religions with themselves as godheads. Think of Mao, Hitler....Korean dudes calling themselves "the father", Little Red Books, zillions of statues of Lenin, manifestos and death to the unbelievers, endless marching, chanting and singing the praises of whomever. Sounds like religion to me, no matter how secular the origin....

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 5 replies

  • 

    deactivated member 

    Actually, Hitler was a Christian. Born Catholic. He often used the rallying cry of "Christ-killers" to incite anti-semitism.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    dimestorenovel 

    But I don't think Hitler was "Christian" - he used religion when he needed to but he was no Christian - he was the Beast.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    David B 

    I've found that when apologists proclaim that Hitler was "not a Christian", what they are trying to say is that he was not a "true Christian". Of course, this convenient mechanism can be used to separate ANY believer in Christ who violates some teaching of Christ from being a "true Christian". Of course, this boils down to "any sinner is potentially not a true Christian if it's not convenient for us to define him that way."
    
    Certain parts of Mein Kampf make it pretty clear that Hitler believed in Christ, which is (of course) the real definition of a Christian. If the membership requirements for Christianity required someone to be free of sin, Christianity would have (by its own definition) a membership of one.

    posted 9 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    tubesocksandals 

    limpet55, I don't agree with your statement that "Atheists have taken on the awesome and impossible task of trying to prove a negative". Atheists don't need to prove anything - the burden of proof is on the folks making the outrageous claims.
    
    BTW, 'atheist' is a pretty vague term. By definition, agnostics are atheists, since an atheist (a - theist) is simply someone who is not a theist. Agnostics claim they aren't certain, which means that they're not believers - ergo atheists.
    
    While I find the position of agnostics somewhat silly, I don't think anyone would claim that they have taken on a task to prove (or disprove) anything.
    
    Also, people who don't believe in goblins haven't taken on the task to disprove them either.
    
    Goblins, vampires, fairies, God, Jesus... they're all the same - myths and fairytales. I don't have any desire to disprove any of them, I'm just as happy to show how silly the 'proof' of their existence is.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Terri K 

    Stalin was educated in church schools as a boy and attended a seminary for five years.

    posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  deactivated member 

  Hi. I just finished Hitchen's book and loved it. I've also enjoyed Dawkins and Harris. They all have different styles but I think they make pretty mcuh the same point, ie. religion is a remnant of the brutish ignorant infancy of our species and the sooner it's gone the sooner we have a shot at world peace. I have to say I agree.
  
  I think that squeezing all the wonder and mystery of the universe down into a tiny anthropomorphic concept is an injustice to the mystery and wonder of the universe. I see absolutely no reason to believe there is a god, and I'm glad that high profile people like the authors we're talking about are getting so much attention. At this point in history, we have theocracies acquiring nuclear weapons and we need to wake up before we blow up.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    Bakari45 

    Hmmm, I read Htichen's book up to the last chapter. I didn't really enjoy it as much as I did Dawkins and Harris's books. I found Hichens to be a little pompous. And parts of book seem a little esoteric. I'm glad he wrote the book, and I do enjoy interviews with him that I've seen on YouTube, but I don't think his book will convert anybody to stop believing in the God character.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gwyn M 

    I do understand where Bakari45 is coming from. I greatly enjoyed Hitchen's book and enjoyed the beginning where he talks about knowing for certain that he did not believe...rather at an early age. I identified with it until he seemed to tie most of the issues that Atheists face every day in a way that seemed to be personally insulted. Harris has a wonderful perspective on what it's like to be an atheist in America in particular and is very straight-up and doesn't beat around the bush.
    
    To be frank, I was a Dawkins fan before I came to the conclusion that I was an atheist simply because he has brought more attention to this matter than any other author...he also doesn't apologize. :-)
    
    "At this point in history, we have theocracies acquiring nuclear weapons and we need to wake up before we blow up." Couldn't have said it better, myself. :-)

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  deactivated member 

  Allahu Akbar! (God is Great)

  posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  show 6 replies

  • 

    meesh 

    What is that? A drive-by posting?
    
    Aloha Snackbar! (I'm hungry.)

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    dimestorenovel 

    Behead those who insult Islam! !
    (brought to you by the Religion of Peace)
    
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155479.php
    
    (LGF Minion on patrol)

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    deactivated member 

    Ha, what a cowinkidink seeing my two favorite people on Shelfari here in this group? Anyhoo I'm not aboot to start a flamewar in here...
    
    I'll leave you antitheists and atheists alone.
    

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    dimestorenovel 

    Yes - it is certainly stwange seeing you here too! BuBye for now! Tata.

    posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Enigma23 

    totus hail Volatilis Spaghetti Monasteriense (all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

    posted 9 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    @ meesh
    
    That is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!!!
    :-D

    posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Maria Pilar A 

  Both "God Is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" were well overdue books. They have thrown into the masses the notion of "why do we have to respect faith when it's nothing more than irrantional and wishful thinking and mor often than not does more harm than good" and quite about time!!
  I have to agree both books have made feel more in the mood to come out and say "yes, I am an atheist, so what? I'm going to hell you say, so what? I still consider myself a better person than many of you who think yourself the chosen ones and better than the rest cause you have a bid bearded imaginary friend (substitute here with guy with blue skin and multiple limbs, a guy with a turban, or whatever other figure of your choice)"
  I still think Dawkins book is better than Hitchens, and I think I would have enjoyed more "God Is Not Great" if I had read if before "God Delusion" and not after. But still, both books say many things that NEEDED to be said.
  And they do something I (pardon the language) can't be arsed to do... that is engage in debate with religious zealots and intolerant-all-dedicated-to-the-Lord people... Whether it may be on forums, or any other places... I lack the energy to do that, I rather dedicate that energy to enjoy my life, do what I can to improve the world if lil by lil, and do my work as an Oncology nurse as best as I can, cause I think that's more important than enduring people throwing at me their garbage of beliefs...
  To all of you that have the will and energy to do so (including my bf), my hat's off to you guys, and my most deepfelt thanks!

  posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top