You said, “Christians and religious apologists seem to be more interested in undermining atheist writers than solving their own ‘in-house’ problems.” You know, I think “moderates” put ten times as much energy and creativity challenging the destructive, narrow-minded ideas of fundamentalists et al compared to energy directed at Dawkins and friends. The reason for this is that “moderate” preachers ARE focused on the ‘in-house’ issues of religion. The focus is on the seeking of balance,…wait…”balance” is too wimpy a word. The proper term is dialectic, or as one theologian put it, “the radical middle”. Atheists have hit the radar recently, sparking some to write rebuttals, but “moderates” have been challenging extremist views vigorously for hundreds of years. There has been an incredible level of debate. “moderates” have worked very hard to present well reasoned views. Trouble is, the media loves a provocateur, so Jerry Falwell gets air time for any nonsensical remark he makes when a brilliant theology prof who writes a well reasoned rebuttal to Falwell is lucky if her book sells 10000 copies. So, if the dialectical approach doesn’t interest pop culture and the media, moderate clergy still work hard to wean their congregations off the crazy ideas out there. They have had to because biblical simplism and prejudical sectarianism are so destructive to congregations and families and communities.

I must disagree. Where are the Catholics taking on the Vatican, telling them that they are promoting near genocidal policies in relation to contraception. Where are the Christians calling out those that read Genesis 1+2 literally and telling them they are lunatics? Where are the Muslims burning effigies of Bin Laden or criticizing Saudi Arabia for its misogynistic policies?

Exactly! How about creationism marching into classrooms? Or the vast amount of time and resources wasted on opposing gay-marriages as if it was a major moral issue of the 21st century? Or the banning of stem cell researches based on blind beliefs? What and how are the moderates doing? Some examples would be much appreciated.

And if the moderates really have been trying hard for hundreds of years to combat extremist views, they haven’t had much success. This is more of a reason why it is time for atheists to join and combat against fundamentalism.

Michael, great to have discovered your blog too! It is definitely one of the best ones I know of. Thanks for the link to my post, no wonder the site traffic has gone up

I said “but “moderates” have been challenging extremist views vigorously for hundreds of years.”

You said “If that’s the case then they’ve not done a very good job!”
I dunno, check out northern and western Europe, check out Canada. These places are relatively extremist free, both in the political and religious arenas. Creationism has had minimal impact in European churches. Abortion, death penalty, prayer in schools, same sex marriage are issues that Canadians and Europeans have dealt with in very different ways than in the US. Much less division, much less rancour. “Moderate” religious views have prevailed both in the church and in the society. I swear I can’t think of a single Canadian far-right extremist of note. Yet, Canada and the United States have a very similar denominational breakdown. Canada has Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims in numbers similar to the US. However, something about the US political system makes everything a battle. Something about the US system makes extremism work. I will argue that it is the politics that have polarized religion rather than religion polarizing politics. There is no religious reason the US would be so divided. Historically, the US has been home to many moderate religious groups. The US was the first nation to separate church and state. Yet, something about the two-party, winner-take-all system led to a political polarization, which has tended to polarize religious groups. (And this is a recent developement, remember, in the fifties, deep south fundamentalists still voted for the Democrats)

You asked where are the Catholics who are taking on the Vatican concerning birth control. In Quebec, Catholics took on the pope, I hear every Catholic woman in Quebec is on the pill. It wasn’t a polemic, it was just a choice to take the pope’s authority “in moderation”.
Also, remember, moderates did influence the pope. In the sixties, the Second Vatican Council was a great victory for “moderates” and the Catholic church underwent serious reformation.
You asked why Muslims haven’t been burning Bin Laden in effigy. Imams everywhere have been preaching against Bin Laden and extremist theology, (and many moderates have been killed simply for being vocal moderates) Yet good theology doesn’t stop extremism, because extremism isn’t about religion, it is about politics, particularly the politics of identity.

Take Ireland. We think that the Irish are divided into two religions, Catholic and Protestant. Yet, Anglican and Catholic are about as similar in their theology as any two denominations can get. And both denominations contain a non-violent ethic at its heart. Yet, Ireland knew decades of vicious violence, not because of religion, but because of something political, something about identity and about historical memory. Mutual bombings between Catholics and Protestants happened only in Ireland.

I said “but “moderates” have been challenging extremist views vigorously for hundreds of years.”

You said “If that’s the case then they’ve not done a very good job!”
I dunno, check out northern and western Europe, check out Canada. These places are relatively extremist free, both in the political and religious arenas. Creationism has had minimal impact in European churches. Abortion, death penalty, prayer in schools, same sex marriage are issues that Canadians and Europeans have dealt with in very different ways than in the US. Much less division, much less rancour. “Moderate” religious views have prevailed both in the church and in the society…

I live in Britain, and it seems to me that the relative lack of religious influence on politics here is not because religion is dominated by moderation, but because religion is very weak and getting weaker. My experience suggests that in the case of christianity, the smaller the number of practicing christians, the more likely they are to belong to the charismatic or cult end of the spectrum. But they are just a rump: this is not a christian country any more.
Jesus has left the building.

Look, I don’t like the tone of those “Christians’ that uses mean spirited rhetoric any more than you do. That doesn’t excuse Harris and Dawkins et.al. for stooping to their level. Besides, they lose credibility with thoughtful people of many persuasions when their arguments dwell in the basement of reasoning. The only benefit to using emotionally charged language is towards the ego gratification of the writer. It does little to stimulate open mindedness in either camp.

There are polite and thoughtful apologists - the classic example is Lewis. Perhaps because he was for most of his life an atheist he was more understanding of that point of view.

This being said, to justify this type of inflammatory debate by accusing the opposition of not speaking out sufficiently (a subjective opinion) is irrelevant to the issue. I could just as easily choose not to take Harris and Dawkins seriously because they do not address the human rights abuses of Castro, a professed atheist. But I won’t.

Please refrain from chastising me for allcaps. I know it is a bad bad thing but Michael knows why it is this way.

MY PIECE HAS TWO POINTS: TO BE BLUNT, I BELIEVE THERE IS A HARVEST TO BE HAD FOR ATHEISTS. CYNICISM ABOUT RELIGION IS AT HIGH TIDE, AND PEOPLE WANT AN ALTERNATIVE. THE OTHER POINT, THE MAIN ONE OF THE ARTICLE, IS THAT DAWKINS HAS FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT HE SET OUT TO DO.

THAT’S ALL. I HONESTLY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GOING ON ABOUT. I MEAN , I CALLED YOU A NICE GUY AND EVERYTHING AND I SAID THAT IF MORE
ATHEISTS ACTED LIKE YOU (INSTEAD OF LIKE RICHARD) YOU WOULD PROBABLY ADD TO YOUR NUMBERS.

I AM NOT, AS YOU STATE, “examining the weaknesses in Dawkins’ arguments”, NOT IN THIS PIECE ANYWAY (ON MY BLOG I AM TRYING TO THOUGHTFULLY PICK THEM APART.) IN FACT, ONE SENTENCE IN THE DIGITAL JOURNAL PIECE SAYS “HIS ARGUMENTS, AS GOOD AS THEY ARE…”

“It’s all too common for people such as Krahn to completely ignore the more salient points Dawkins makes and thus dismiss the pressing issues he advances.”

THIS IS BUT ONE ARTICLE OF 5 OR 6 IN A CONTINUING SERIES. I DON’T THINK I’M PULLING A HIT AND RUN HERE - I’M WRITING, ENGAGING, DISCUSSING, AND LEARNING AS I GO.

“If you ask Michael or most moderate, ’sensible’ (I use the word under duress) Christians to identify the most pressing” (CHEAP SHOT )

“Before I say the following I want to preempt it with this, I think Michael Krahn is a thoroughly decent chap, a great writer and one of the better Christians one could know.” (THANK YOU!)

“But, like many bloggers and writers, one only needs to read his blog to see that he has no interest in tackling any of the real concerns, any of the damage those identifying themselves under his banner are causing, he simply spends his time debating Dawkins. Even though he does so very well, I think he’s missing the point.”

THE SERIES IS NOT COMPLETE!!!!! I HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF GETTING INTO THOSE ISSUES. IN FACT, I’M NOT EVEN FINISHED READING THE BOOK BECAUSE I AM MAKING SO MANY NOTES TO FOLLOW-UP AND WRITE ABOUT.

“Christians and religious apologists seem to be more interested in undermining atheist writers than solving their own ‘in-house’ problems.”

I WOULDN’T SAY SO. FOR EXAMPLE, I AM QUITE INTERESTED IN READING HITCHENS. I READ HIS WEEKLY COLUMN AND HE IS A FANTASTIC WRITER AND HAVE
SAID… IN A COMMENT SECTION… SOMEHWERE ON THE INTERNET. I DON’T SEE HOW I’M UNDERMINING DAWKINS.

“If anything, we’ve taken a step backwards. Dawkins is not the problem, he only exists because the moderate has failed to keep his religious friends in check.”

THIS MAY ALL BE TRUE, AND I TRUST THAT IT IS, COMING FROM YOU. MY INTERACTION WITH ATHEISM IS EXTREMELY LIMITED - I ADMIT THAT CLEARLY AND
REPEATEDLY. I HAVE MORE TO LEARN THAN TO TEACH, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE EMBARKED ON THIS JOURNEY.

“It’s time the moderate realizes we have more in common and share many more values than they have in common with the more extreme parts of their religion.”
I MOSTLY AGREE. IT HAS BEEN ON OF THE MORE PLEASANT SURPRISES.

“The moderate must relize that to truly progress, we can no longer afford the luxury of
defending belief in the supernatural and realize that 1st century mythology is not the way to progress as a species.”

OBVIOUSLY NOT AS MUCH AGREEMENT HERE

“I’m often skeptical of just how willing the moderate is to really face the issues head on. I’m often asked to not lump all theists together in the same pot yet these same theists still jump on the bandwgaon with the same old servile arguments about atheism being a religion, the horrors committed by atheists and how science is just another kind of faith and completely ignore the harm their religion is doing.”

I HOPE YOU’VE NOT OBSERVED THAT IN MY WRITING - APOLOGIES IF YOU HAVE. I AM WORKING VERY HARD TO RESPECT ATHEISTS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS EVIDENCED IN THE MANY TIMES I HAVE CALLED YOU “WELL-SPOKEN, RESPECTFUL, ARTICULATE, ETC….)

AGAIN - SORRY FOR HE ALLCAPS.

[…]on his blog Atheist Perspective, has taken theists (me in particular) to task for focusing too much on Dawkins’ tone rather […]

“Here’s a challenge to any theist that calls himself moderate. For every article or blog post you write criticizing atheists, atheism as a ‘religion’ or the new breed of secular authors, why not write another criticizing those that really do damage to your religion?“

Quid pro quo, brother. Although you don’t see this as the mirror image of atheists not rising to denounce atheist institutions for their transgressions, nevertheless this is the case.

No, atheism did not ‘drive’ the genocidal communist despots of the past 100 years, but it was a significant factor of their philosophy. Initially well intentioned, they corrupted their ‘faith’ and themselves in the process. So where is this atheist hue and cry? Perhaps I should find you lacking in credibility since you do not publicly take on atheists who kill. (BTW, there are plenty of Christians who are not Creationists, and vocal about it. I do so on my own site. Maybe not with as much venom….)

Is Pol Pot guilty of the same ‘evil’ as the Pope is when he proscribes birth control? Is an emphasis on non-promiscuity over the distribution of free condom on the same par as the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Gulag, the Ukrainian Famine and Shining Path atrocities in Peru?

But I think this argument of mine would be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Just as your defense of rabid atheist is.

No, atheism did not ‘drive’ the genocidal communist despots of the past 100 years, but it was a significant factor of their philosophy..

Sorry that’s clearly nonsensical. Atheism is the absence of theism, how can the absence of a minority belief be a significant factor in the philosophy of for example the ex-seminarian stalin? It’s almost as if you think that atheism is a disease.

rabid atheist

Lovely. Mad dog, eh? Very christian. Jesus has left the building mate.

Michael;
“An atheist has no moral code, no moral standards.”

That’s what you say but you don’t believe it. If so then you wouldn’t even bother to distance yourself from the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. Your moral standard tells you that what they did was wrong.

“Communism wiped out religion not because they were trying to encourage their citizenry to be skeptical and think critically, but because they wanted to get rid of a competitor.”

Not merely a competitor, but a competitor that would speak out against tyranny, torture and murder. For this same reason right wing tyrannies (who may claim to know God but actually have turned away) tend to kill outspoken priests as well.

I (and many others) believe that the atheist tendency to devalue life as opposed to (the majority of) theists has helped lay the groundwork for later atrocities. Nietzsche predicted it.

That being said, are there theists who call themselves Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc that are intentionally hypocritical, cruel, murderous, perverted…? Sure there are. And if they are deliberate and unrepentant then they are merely nominal in their faith. Most though, are just flawed people, like you, me, Sam Harris and Marcus Borg.

But again my point is this: You appear to hold theists to a higher standard than you hold atheists. I am curious as to why this is so? Is it because you claim to have no standards? Then where do you get the standards that you are applying to theists?

Because true believers also hold themselves to a higher standard. They never fully meet that standard, and they should never think themselves above others, but the standard is spelled out succinctly for them.

Which brings me to Tom’s potshot; nice try. But accusing me of stepping outside of Jesus’ teachings because I used the word ‘rabid’ in an argument is a misunderstanding of what I was saying as well as a misunderstanding of Jesus. For the sake of argument he once referred to Herod as ‘that fox’

For your edification I will leave you with the MW definition for ‘rabid’. I think it was very aptly used, and not at all mean spirited. But don’t lick your wounds until you get a blood test.

Main Entry: ra·bid
Pronunciation: ‘ra-b&d also ‘rA-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin rabidus mad, from rabere
1 a : extremely violent : FURIOUS b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion

Mate?

Hi Christian,

This quote caught my attention:

No, atheism did not ‘drive’ the genocidal communist despots of the past 100 years, but it was a significant factor of their philosophy. Initially well intentioned, they corrupted their ‘faith’ and themselves in the process.

It would be nice if you can expand that in depth and back it up. Specificially, how is atheism being deployed as a mechanism for killings? Had any of the despicable tyrannts justify their killings based on atheism? To what degree is atheism being a significant factor in communism or whatever ideology these tyrannts used?

I (and many others) believe that the atheist tendency to devalue life as opposed to (the majority of) theists has helped lay the groundwork for later atrocities. Nietzsche predicted it.

Do you mean ‘atheism’ as a lack of belief in god(s) here? If so, the above statement is clearly wrong - just think of the Buddhists as an example - do they devalue lives? Or you mean the lack of having a religious system? If this is the case, how about the ancient Chinese societies who led the world as the leading civilisation throughout various parts of human history, when they were basically secular societies with moral codes coming from Confucianism, traditional Chinese values and Buddhism?

Because true believers also hold themselves to a higher standard. They never fully meet that standard, and they should never think themselves above others, but the standard is spelled out succinctly for them.

Thatis simply condescending. If the set of standards are so succinct as you claim, why do we still have moral issues regarding so many different areas of humanity? Are all the standards applicable to modern society (the ban of condom use is simply morally indefendible)? Why do you chose one standard but not the others?

By the way, “mate” is the equivalent to “buddy” or “dude” or “my friend” etc used primarily in Australia.

…I (and many others) believe that the atheist tendency to devalue life as opposed to (the majority of) theists has helped lay the groundwork for later atrocities. Nietzsche predicted it.

This is such a travesty. Devalue life? So that would be when compared to people who claim to believe in life after death, to believe that life is a rehearsal, a game played by god to test his toys. It’s christian-idiocy that devalues life, and permits it’s devotees to rape the living world and wage war against their fellow humans. No wonder it’s so big in the USA, eh?
“True” believers! That’s people in your particular cult is it?
Theism devalues life because it denies death, and devalues human intelligence because it is so stupid.

“God?”
“Pixie!”

h3nry: It was an intrinsic acceptance of the idea that ‘god is dead’ melded with philosophies that were bastardizations of evolutionary theory that helped set the stage for the great socialist engineering horrors of the 20th century. Atheism leads to nihilism.

The Buddhist is not an atheist, nor were the ancient Chinese. Their religion takes on different “forms than western religions. Confucianism is a societal code and not individualistic, but then so is Judaism. Christianity should probably NOT exist as a religion - that was not Christ’s intent (based upon a unbiased reading of the Gospels).

I am not being condescending - we believe that there is something higher than humanity and it provides a standard for us. It is your choice to take it or leave it.

Tom: read what you have written - you are a poster boy for rabid invective. “The gentleman doth protest too much, me thinks.” You come across as close minded and spiteful as anyone from the Religious Right.

Michael:

“I will not answer the question about where I get those standards from”

Why not? I suggest that even though you (and the Scandinavians) profess atheism, you’re moral world view was initially established by religious theism centuries ago. I don’t want to sound ’stupid’ so I will clarify; I do not believe that all religious people are moral nor are the most of all atheists amoral. Both people reside on both sides of this issue and morality as well as religious belief are so blurred at the margins (as they should) that it in this case it is inaccurate and non-productive to generalize.

As far as nice blogs go, if you read what I have written you will see that I have on numerous occasions taken on the crimes and imperfections of Christianity. I tend not to be a ‘one issue’ person so I am not as riled up about the Catholic Church’s stance on condom use. My initial feeling about that is; Why do they bother? If the people are already sexually promiscuous it would seem that they are losing that battle anyway. Time to focus on other areas.

Can’t you find something better to do with your time as well? Too bad we are separated by the Atlantic. We might meet downtown someteime and take a homeless guy to lunch.

Tom: read what you have written - you are a poster boy for rabid invective. “The gentleman doth protest too much, me thinks.” You come across as close minded and spiteful as anyone from the Religious Right.

No response then? Typical! Why don’t YOU read what I have written and then answer my points?
I suppose you think I am well beneath you, as I seem not to respect religious belief, and must therefore be a lesser person? I don’t respect religious belief! I think it’s stupid and harmful and joyless and anti-life and non-adaptive. Shame, eh? I’m missing out on all the homo-eroticism of jesus worship. Oh well, never mind, I get plenty of that in the pub. So… Tell me why atheism devalues life. Go on. Now is your chance. Also, you might tell me about the role of vegetarianism in your cult? You life-respecters must be vegetarian, eh?

Michael, I wasn’t suggesting that you need to pick up the pace when it comes to addressing issues of justice (see my smilie) but that, despite of our disagreement over what may or may not exist outside of our natural realm, we may have more in common than we think.

The biggest problem with the western religions is their belief that they have all the answers and that those who are not members of the club are somehow less than they are. This was the stance that seemed provoke Jesus of Nazareth (as well as Gautama) more than any other.

Tom, sorry I have not visited your site, I was only addressing your comments here. After all, you threw the first ’sarcastic’ stone. I will check your stuff out. But I will guess that the tone of the rest of your writing may be similar to what I see here; fairly emotional.

I don’t think that atheism per se devalues ones own life, but I think it tends to devalue individual life over that of the collective. The end justifies the means and all that. Now,religoion has been just as guilty, in a slightly different way, in that they have been known to devalue the physical life over that of the eternally spiritual. Gnosticism has crept into much of the lives of today’s religious people. The results have often been atrocious.

What type of pub do you frequent? Homo-erotic Jesus worship? I think it was a longing for something other than a male deity that led the Roman Catholics to deify Mary but that’s another story. As for vegetarianism - you make a good point. I struggle with that inconsitencie myself. If I lived in Britain I probably would be a vegetarian, what with your cuisine and all.

But your jest (?) makes me think. It is not all life that atheism has a tendency to devalue, but human life. I am not ashamed to say that I put a higher premium on human life over that of animal life. If a person was starving and a cow was standing nearby, then that would soon be a dead cow. If a group were starving and there was person present who was comatose or even brain dead, I would never suggest murder. That being said, we should respect all life and I don’t know if that is what we are doing with our animal factories. Good point.

My position with the starvation scenario not necessarily religious, but for me it is based upon a belief that human life is sanctified.

“Yet, correct me if I’m wrong, the greatest proponents of the death penalty are those with a deep rooted belief in God. No?“

Not this one. The death penalty is wrong. And in (almost) all cases, so is war. When I was an atheist I was a proponent of both, although my atheism did not lead me to that opinion. But my journey with Christ has led me to oppose both positions.

IMHO any “Christian” who can reconcile taking a life, outside of the most extreme cases (perhaps defending the life of another), is out of step with the Gospels. Even that is a compromise on my part; a bastardization of Christ’s teaching.

Do the proponents of the death penalty have a deep rooted belief in God? Who knows. I would suggest that perhaps they have a misguided belief in something but they do not have what we would call ‘faith’, or a trust in God. There is still the human desire to take things into their own hands. If we believe that life is granted to us (as I do), that we exist because of the grace of God, we (including society) have no right to take that gift away.

I think most of your many justifiable complaints against religion are really directed towards fundamentalism and not theism in general. The fundamentalist church in the US is not (IMAO) a Christian religion at all, but instead an American religion that worships a deity that has been shaped into a specifically American mold. Not a good thing. The Bible calls this idolatry.

Just as all of the atrocities committed over the centuries by the European church were never at the behest of any God. These were merely the examples of selfish (self oriented) humans who used a misplaced fear in God to fuel and justify their crimes. We continue to do the same today. The Bible calls this heresy.

Thank you for rising so swiftly to my challenge, Christian, it was only the comments above that I was concerned with. How interesting that you have doubts about meat-eating, and yet you eat meat. Perhaps you might like to examine that one, on moral grounds. God hasn’t told you it’s wrong, yet you suspect that it must be wrong. How about making a choice based on your own moral authority, rather than on telepathic communications from an invisible alien? (Sorry if that doesn’t square with your idea of your god-thing, but I was brought up in the church of scotland, and that was the god they liked to pretend had told them how to live.)
I’m a vegetarian, because I think that if you have a choice of killing and eating a carrot, or, for example, a sheep, then that choice has a moral dimension, and the right thing is to strangle the carrot. I think that way, and act accordingly, because as an atheist, I retain moral power, no authority will take that away from me. How unlike the christian, eh?, guided by a dead guy.
I think you might make a stand on this one Christian…

Michael; sanctity, sanctify, sacred, consecrate, saint - they all share the same root, all having to do with the some elements of the physical world in relation to God. Your definition of sanctity, although perhaps resulting in similar behavior, surely must be different than mine.

I think you are confused as to how to define Christians. It is not a political party. Most Christians are confused here as well and because of this I can certainly understand your position.

I am a follower of Jesus and I often feel uncomfortable associating with “Christianity” for many of the same reasons you take exception to it. I do not hold to many (maybe most) of the creeds and doctrines of Christianity such as original sin, hell, a trinity. But I would not call myself a moderate, conservative or liberal when it comes to my faith. It is personal and intense yet dynamic and not intended to be dogmatic or structured.

I had no idea that you were merely sharing your amusement over some of the inconstancies you see in the Church, I thought this was a part of your argument. Again, I never said that nominal Christians hold life to be more sacred than anyone else; the Crusades, pogroms, witch trials, aboriginal genocide, slavery as well as Northern Ireland would put that idea to bed early. I do not want to defend organized Christianity, which since at least as far back as Constantine ,has not been much more than an arm of the state. At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist, they might call themselves Christian but Christ has little influence on what they have done.

I see your point Tom and it is a good one. Why don’t I cease and desist from eating meat? Well one reason could be that I am weak, I love my steak, chicken, pork ribs and fish. Evolution has made me a carnivore, no? But you could be right, the next step in our evolutionary process may be to cease intentional slaughter of animals.

But where do I make my stand? Should I give up insecticides? How many animals die on our highways? Should I stop wearing leather? Using antibiotics? Do I encourage people in Africa, Asia and South America to also refrain from eating meat? The lines get blurry.

Now believe it or not, God does NOT channel his will onto my psyche, as some Brahmin may do with Shirley McLaine. God ‘leads’ me because, by keeping Christ in my ‘mind’ my ‘heart’ takes on new characteristics. Even Ghandi, who was no Christian, allowed Jesus to lead him in his peaceful revolt against the British (oops, sorry). Martin Luther King Jr, had to relearn this from Ghandhi, because the church in the USA was not preaching it.

Most everyone who makes moral decisions does so because of the morality that is written on their hearts. The bad boys of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin et al) listened to their own moral authority as well, establishing their own moral power. If they (and others,including the Church) had perhaps listened to the moral teachings of that ‘dead guy’ (and don’t we all really follow different ‘dead guys’?) then we likely would have experienced much less pain and suffering on this planet.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Michael. I probably do not have the right to call myself a Christian, if we define Christianity as how the church, as well as it’s enemies define it.

I do not pick and choose from scripture. I do not consider scripture to be the ‘in-errant Word of God’ and therefore do not place the Bible before God. The Bible is just one sacred means of encountering God. It is full of poetry, metaphor and allegory and is not a history or science text book. When read with an eye towards metaphor much more can be revealed than when it is read like a cosmic newspaper that is devoid of error.

The Judeo Christian tradition is merely one way in which people can relate to God. There is as much validity to other faiths and we (Christians) marginalize God when we feel that ours is the only way an omnipotent being could, or would, commune with us. That being said, all faiths have their bastards.

I do not believe that atheists (or Buddhists, Mormons, Wiccans) are going to hell (perhaps because there is no reason to believe in one. I don’t really think it is of any concern of mine. I do know what Jesus laid down as the Way towards salvation from a world that is mired in misery and pain. That way is both personal and societal. And that way is all about forgiveness, service and sacrifice to others, and love. Most of the rest is not found in scriptures and is…crap.

BTW if you are talking about Russell’s remarks on why he was not a Christian, I think his argument flawed. But he was basing it on a common misconception of what Christianity is (as I have stated above). As far as what is presented to the world as “Christianity” he wasn’t too far off the mark.

I see your point Tom and it is a good one. Why don’t I cease and desist from eating meat? Well one reason could be that I am weak, I love my steak, chicken, pork ribs and fish. Evolution has made me a carnivore, no?

No, Christian, evolution has made you an omnivore, that’s how you come to have that moral moment of choice.

But where do I make my stand? Should I give up insecticides? How many animals die on our highways? Should I stop wearing leather? Using antibiotics? Do I encourage people in Africa, Asia and South America to also refrain from eating meat? The lines get blurry.

That’s a cop-out Christian. It’s obvious that there are many choices, you’ve highlighted some of the more absurd ones just there. But you pigging out on dead meat is not a wholesome image. That would be a good place to make that stand I mentioned.

Most everyone who makes moral decisions does so because of the morality that is written on their hearts. The bad boys of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin et al) listened to their own moral authority as well, establishing their own moral power.

I’d like to see any evidence you have of that. I know quite a lot about Hitler, and I don’t think it’s true about him. I don’t think morality had any real meaning for Hitler, to that extent he was a very defective human being.

If they (and others,including the Church) had perhaps listened to the moral teachings of that ‘dead guy’ (and don’t we all really follow different ‘dead guys’?) then we likely would have experienced much less pain and suffering on this planet.

I really don’t think I follow any dead guys myself, although I do hugely admire some of them. If the great dictators had listened to jesus, they would have heard a different message to that you have heard. That’s what humans do you know. They claim to follow, but they choose leaders who are heading their way. The great advantage of following a dead guy is, they can’t object.
Now come on Christian, be a man, and stand up for what you yourself believe. Stop participating in the dead meat industry. What you lose in saturated fat you will gain in self respect. Eventually you might not even need dead guys any more…

But Tom, my doc has told me to cut out as many carbs as I can (gotta lose weight and watch the sugar). If I cut out meat then I’ll have to avoid the grape and the hop.

That is a stand I am not prepared to make. Now, I rarely “pig out” on meat (though occasionally the well prepared pig, in the form of good BBQ, does cry out to me. But you are right, I am copping out. Maybe someday….

You said you were from, Scotland, right? Maybe if there was some good Southern BBQ in the Highlands then you might go easier on me. I mean, who can’t give up eating Haggis?

Oh, and I think that although, by our standards, blokes like Hitler are amoral they feel that they were the most moral of people. The person who thinks most highly of his own virtues is most likely not virtuous at all. Hence Jesus’ problems with the religious people of his time.

What can I say? For no practical reason, surfing the web today has gotten me exercised over the oft-repeated “urban myth” that Hitler presented himself as an atheist. He never did! He referred again and again to the “importance” of God as something to be worshipped and the “wrongs” of the Jews in “distorting” God. The man did express a Nietzschean impatience with the Christian notion of respecting the weak. But being anti-Christian is not being an atheist, particularly when one considers some of Hitler’s statements where he actually voiced the hope that atheism would be stamped out for good!

When some people try and point out, in response to this correction, that [paraphrase] “we can’t really be sure what his private beliefs really were”, that’s when I really get boiling mad, frankly. It’s just obvious to me that, by hook or by crook, believers who claim atheism for Hitler are really more interested in tarring atheism with monsters like Hitler than in “tarring” Hitler with atheism. The subtext is “oh, if one’s an atheist, then one must be a Hitler!”:-( So when someone tries — in response to this uncomfortable correction that Hitler really was a believer, if not a Christian — to bring in the question of Hitler’s private thoughts on this, that is so not the point at issue — and I have a feeling that obfuscators who attempt that dodge know that that’s not the point and are just trying to keep alive the notion that Hitler was an atheist anyway, in any way they can. They are first shown up as liars when claiming that Hitler ever said anything of the kind, and then when that’s shown up as a lie, they try sustaining the lie through the back door.

The point about Hitler’s private thoughts is a complete red herring: it suggests that Hitler may have really been an atheist and none of us any the wiser on that. Well - DUH! Any historical figure of whose private life we know little - Shakspeare, for instance - might have been an atheist and we none the wiser. So what? Obviously, any believer can impute atheism to ANY historical figure who appears as a shadowy figure in his private life, or who has come off as especially unethical in the pages of history, or both. Convenient, yes. Pertinent here, NO!!!!!!!

Some confound skepticism-towards-Christianity with atheism. Cute, I must say.

The point is that tooooooooooooo many people deliberately claim that Hitler CLAIMED to be an atheist when Hitler CLAIMED no such thing whatever, and in fact CLAIMED otherwise many a time. Was he a non-Christian? Very likely. Was he of another faith? Also very likely. Ultimately, he claimed to be a believer in a deity of some sort, said nothing to contradict that, and those that claim he ever specifically claimed to be an atheist are

L Y I N G !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The false claims in this regard that I’ve read rarely stop at merely saying “Oh, that man Hitler was an atheist”. Nine times out of ten, they are far more explicit and go much further - and deliberately, maliciously, falsely so: they say specifically that Hitler specifically SAYS that he (Hitler) is an atheist! THAT is the BIG LIE here. Hitler never SAID any such thing - period, end of paragraph.

I call believers on their false claim that Hitler SAID he was an unbeliever. Hitler SAID no such thing. And saying that Hitler SAID such a thing happens to be one big lie. It deliberately obfuscates the issue to introduce the notion that Hitler’s private thoughts are somehow relevant here.

They AREN’T!!!!!!!!!

O.K., rant over.

But Tom, my doc has told me to cut out as many carbs as I can (gotta lose weight and watch the sugar). If I cut out meat then I’ll have to avoid the grape and the hop. That is a stand I am not prepared to make. Now, I rarely “pig out” on meat (though occasionally the well prepared pig, in the form of good BBQ, does cry out to me.

By this standard, you follow jesus because he doesn’t ask you to do anything difficult, or incompatible with personal gluttony. That’s an easygoin’ jesus…

But you are right, I am copping out. Maybe someday….

This will happen if you have the courage to be your own moral authority, and dump the fairy stories. Projecting an image of your needs onto the imaginary person of jesus is irrelevant to morality. You are the one who makes choices, and you and the rest of us live with the consequences. Take control.

You said you were from, Scotland, right? Maybe if there was some good Southern BBQ in the Highlands then you might go easier on me. I mean, who can’t give up eating Haggis?

Ho Ho. Do you ever eat kidneys?

G Riggs, you are absolutely correct, although you may have expended more energy than necessary’

1. I didn’t bring up Hitler, one of the atheist boys did. I originally only used communist dictators as my example.

2. I stuck with Hitler once his name was mentioned because as you said, he was influenced by Nietzsche, an atheist.

3. Hitler (and Nietzsche) was also influenced by Darwinists.

4. I don’t know if Hitler really had a faith, but he used religion, primarily the mythological aspects of religion, as a tool to appeal to the German mindset. I am also referring to the mythologies found in the Bible,such as John’s Revelation.

5. Hitler was not a Christian.

Tom Jesus was very easygoin’, as his burden is easy and his yoke is light. An understanding and acceptance of Christ as the lord of your life is a n unbelievably freeing experience. This is why, sadly, I believe that the majority of Christians are nominal at best, because they describe and exemplify a faith that is burdensome, morose, overly serious and often mean spirited.

I don’t eat meat because of a belief in Jesus or in fairy stories. I don’t know too many fairy stories, but I hear that your homeland is full of them. Care to share any? I do like George MacDonald.

Since we last talked I had some time to reflect. I’m stickin’ with meat. BTW - you bustin’ Michael or any of your atheist friends this hard? Are they vegetarians as well? Or is this that old atheist double standard I was talking about earlier?

Had kidneys once, my dad made them when I was a kid. Horrible! Of course it may have been in my imagination. He was a urologist.

G Riggs, you are absolutely correct, although you may have expended more energy than necessary’

LOL. You’re right! I was really fuming, and I simply went way over the top here (and I was needlessly repetitive in the bargain). Even though no one may be suggesting it here, I’d still like to extend my regrets here for the unfortunate tone of my previous post. My point could have been more effective without the frequent all-caps and the inadvertent repetition .

1. I didn’t bring up Hitler, one of the atheist boys did. I originally only used communist dictators as my example.

Fair enough, and point taken. In any case, I wasn’t necessarily targeting my points at you in particular, more at a general tendency among some posters everywhere on the Web who tacitly take the assumption that Hitler was an atheist as a given and then run with it, even though it was initially a (probably deliberate) lie.

2. I stuck with Hitler once his name was mentioned because as you said, he was influenced by Nietzsche, an atheist.

Again, that’s fair enough. At the same time, I’ve sometimes come across a (minority) view (that I don’t subscribe to myself), which posits that Nietzsche, in saying that “God is dead”, is literally saying that God was once as real as you or me, but has literally perished, leaving us totally alone out here. This would mean that Nietzsche, in crediting the notion of God as existing once, is other than an atheist.

Personally, though, I take it that N. is merely talking figuratively here, and that he is indeed suggesting, the same as any atheist would, that God has never existed and has been a complete fiction from the beginning — hence, atheism.

3. Hitler (and Nietzsche) was also influenced by Darwinists.

Ironically, Darwin himself was not an atheist (surprising, yes). He was an agnostic .

4. I don’t know if Hitler really had a faith, but he used religion, primarily the mythological aspects of religion, as a tool to appeal to the German mindset. I am also referring to the mythologies found in the Bible,such as John’s Revelation.

Actually, his views seem to have oscillated between standard Catholicism and a vague brand of paganism.

5. Hitler was not a Christian.

Well, he apparently became a non-Christian eventually, although still essentially a theist to the end. As I say, he moved toward a quasi-paganism in his last years. OTOH, Mein Kampf still shows a strongly Christian outlook.

Cheers,

G Riggs

G Riggs; understood.

I am positive that Hitler was not a Christian, though I don’t believe he was an atheist.

Raised a Catholic, he may have at one time believed but more likely was one of the many who paid lip service to their religion. His early writing and speeches appeal to that religious nature of the German people, but to suggest that one is doing the will of God by eliminating Jews is hardly Christian in nature.

Later he became virulently anti-Christian as some of his private discussions reveal, as well as the statements made by his various lieutenants. According to some sources the SS were not ‘allowed’ to believe in God even as the German word for God could be found on their uniform.

He was a master propagandist so I don’t think anyone will ever know what was truly in his heart, other than base depravity.

I wonder if Hitler, like the Caesars before him, believed that he might be a God, messianic in nature. His affection for millennial and apocalyptic rhetoric might suggest that.

He probably presents a better case for the atheist position than the Christian but I think this argument leaks as well. After all he was also a vegetarian and I wouldn’t want to link him to Tom because of that.

Hello, I want to jump into the debate. The first step I want to take is as a moderator.

To Christian and Tom, you are bogging the argument down in the horrid beast known as unsupported generalizations.

For example, Tom says, “The fact is that most of those in favour of the death penalty are Christians.” Can you support that with specified surveys? Maybe it is more true to say, “I have talked to 100 people who are in favor of the death penalty, and 75 profess to be Christians.”

To Christian, watch what you are saying, especially about world leaders (and religious policies of communist nations). From History Channel Stuff, Hitler seems to be kind of a pantheist/nudist who was asserting that nature had given the Aryans superior genes. I have read that he was a lifelong Roman Catholic–the argument I read was built on speculation.

Let’s not get bogged down in these standard arguments–but take new strands that focus on “Why I am a theist” or “Why I am an atheist” rather than “Castro is an atheist, blah, blah, blah; the pope is a murderer because he thinks condoms are e-vil, blather, blather, blather.

Raise the level of the argument, and that is something one can get his teeth into.

I recommend that you read Immanual Kant’s Introduction to Logic, as well as his Critique o Pure Reason. In Pure Reason, Kant lays out his arguments as to why or why not affirm the existence of God. He determines, through reason, that God exists, in the sense that a deist believes.

Anyway, I hope this has been helpful.

Let the debate continue,

Ambrosia

For example, Tom says, “The fact is that most of those in favour of the death penalty are Christians.”

Not me old boy, I never make unsupported generalisations… (except that one obviously)

I recommend that you read Immanual Kant’s Introduction to Logic, as well as his Critique o Pure Reason.

I once tried to read some Kant, and woke up three days later in a wheely-bin. That was the end of philosophy as far as I was concerned.

Okay Tom, be fair, what is the the underlying ideas that govern your views?

Which “Jesus” would satisfy you?

Some of Kant is to be savored slowly–other–such as Pure Reason can be frustrating. Still other Kant, such as The Beautiful and the Sublime, is fairly easy reading.

Ambrosia

Ambrosia, in defense of Tom and myself, I don’t think it is necessary for us to support all of our arguments in this ‘conversation’ to the extent that you suggest. We are taking it for granted that both of us are familiar with the material on this subject so that when he suggests that Hitler was a Catholic or I suggest that he was a vegetarian or that his later remarks were aimed against the Church they are easily verifiable by hitting Google. (You are wrong about him dying a Catholic BTW - re-check your source then check a few more).

As far as advising us to read Kant - I’m with Tom. I would advise you to get out of the house a bit. (And a classroom is not always the next best place to be.)

Anyway, I don’t think we are arguing the existence of God here, but instead over the responsibilities each camp may have to morally censure their own.

So, I think you could be just a tad more ‘helpful’, old buddy. Especially to me.

Okay Tom, be fair, what is the the underlying ideas that govern your views?

What underlies my views?

Firstly, my amazed and delighted reaction to finding myself alive, and with a mother. I loved life as a baby, and I have never stopped. Having the mother meant I was able to become empathetic to other living things, to recognise that they had this wonderful life thing too. I study what I love, and I have pursued evolutionary biology for most of my life. The more I know about life the more I love it.

Secondly, being physically and emotionally abused by men when a child taught me to question authority, and believe in the rights of the weak. I study what I fear, and have pursued the riddle of why people do harm for most of my life. The more I know about how people get hurt, the more I despise entrenched power and greed.

So when life hating old men tell me to believe in their stupid fairies I say “no”.

Which “Jesus” would satisfy you?

Obviously I’d strip away all of that supernatural stuff, clearly nonsense. What are we left with? Pacifism? Great! Yup, I love that. We’d have to make the guy love life a bit more, you know, make him vegetarian, and preach against wild animals in the circus, and be a ecologist, and DEFINITELY get rid of the sado-masochistic tortured to death kick. I mean, sick or what? Of course by now he’s just a decent chap with the right ideas, lovable I dare say, but you’d have to be pretty lonely to worship him…

Very reasonable and understandable, Tom. And you are right, there is much religous crap that needs to be pared away before we can see the real Jesus. But I think there is more to the man and his message than mere pacifism.

Vegetarianism aside,(and apart from fish and the occasional ritual sacrifice, little is known of what Jesus ate, but meat was not likely a big part of his diet.) Jesus was an ‘ecologist’ in that he held to scripture which glorifies nature throughout. He was also an outspoken critic of the “sado-masochistic tortured to death kick” as he takes on the powers that be, especially the religious, that use God to keep many people in misery. We don’t know if he preached against the circus, but based upon his other preachings it makes sense to think that he would not be much of a fan.

His message of forgiveness, repentance, justice and peace is much more than pacifism. It is the path towards a life of joy.

It seems fair enough that we give some idea here of where we’re “coming from” and why. I have no problem with that. I suppose I’d describe myself as a “provisional theist”, which may scandalize both camps!:-)

You see, to my way of thinking, humanity is a species which partly depends for its evolution upon socialization. Sure, there are individual drives related to each autonomous organism, but there are also group patterns of behavior that are selected for as well. Hence, socialization. Through the millennia, those group patterns have bequeathed to us such things as villages, then towns, then states, then nations, then international alliances, etc. Each of these structures are geared to interdependent living, ultimately. And as the structures grow in complexity, the portion of the human family being mutually cared for should theoretically grow correspondingly. If that doesn’t happen, growing resentment and social upheavals eventually topple a unit (whether a culture, a state, or whatever) into anarchy, and the evolution of the unit is stunted and eventually dies. If this process happens on a huge enough basis, the species itself is in jeopardy.

Since, frankly, I view the urges for growing social cohesiveness as being fully as biological and as intrinsic to evolution as the urge to sleep, or have sex, or eat, the ways in which those innovative and altruistic urges leading to more and more successfully inclusive socialization manifest themselves are critical, IMO, to understanding how the biological evolution of our species proceeds in the first place. This is why the dynamics of social reform and altruism are critical, I feel, to understanding the evolution of the human species as a whole, not just the survival of individual human organisms.

[i]So far[/i], the manifestations of those essentially heterodox urges (for their time and place) toward greater social inclusiveness have operated in tandem with equally heterodox understandings of deity (for their time and place) that have frequently aroused the dangerous ire of orthodox religious authorities and secular authorities as well. Now, surely, there is nothing more heterodox than a path-breaking atheism or even agnosticism? How come, then, the pioneering atheists (for their time and place) do not have a similar history of concurrent heterodox notions of unprecedented (for their time and place) social inclusiveness? I started out a decade or so back fully expecting to find just such figures who would be heterodox in both respects. Instead, I was disappointed (as initially a skeptic) to find only atheists who were either original and truly altruistic in their social ethics but never original in their atheism, applying a ready-made philosophy of atheism from some other contemporary thinker or from a thinker of a generation or so back; or they would be truly pathbreaking (for their time and place) in their atheism but not innovative, even when on occasion quite ethical, in their social thinking. So they never displayed this symbiotic pattern of concurrently heterodox views in both areas typical of pioneering heterodox theists.

I recognize that plenty of atheists have died horrible deaths and that many, many such figures have had their writings destroyed. So the historical record may not be complete. But much of the first millennium B.C.E. displays a more tolerant spirit — not throughout, obviously, but still markedly more tolerant than most other eras — in which ultimately a higher frequency of skeptical thinking — even respected skeptical thinking — has survived than from any other era until our own day, which is finally as freewheeling as then, even though it hasn’t lasted as long. The absence of the type of innovative atheist who is heterodox (for the atheist’s time and place), in both one’s take on the cosmos and one’s social values, from even these relatively inquiring eras remains especially disappointing to me.

Now, theists who are plainly heterodox in both their take on deity and their take on more inclusive social values are self-evidently risking the ire of their communities — and have garnered it all too frequently. So it’s not necessarily a courage gap that we’re dealing with here, IMO, when we see the absence of such figures among genuinely ground-breaking atheists. Could something else be going on, tied more directly to a heterodox understanding — and visceral awareness — of deity that in turn emboldens the risking of life and limb for innovative/heterodox social reform as well?

Anyway, that is what has occurred to me, and it’s what’s made me conclude that, given the apparent symbiosis between heterodox theist views (for their time and place) and hetereodox ethical/social views (for their time and place), these recurring patterns on the ground may point to natural human evolution being inextricably tied to a visceral awareness of deity in an often heterodox context as well that is frequently riskily countercultural.

There is admittedly one essential assumption/presumption that I make here at the outset, and if that is debunked, my whole argument clearly founders: I assume/presume that humanity’s natural evolution is as much tied to the steady expansion of social mores as it is tied to the individual drives for food, sex and sleep, etc. — an entirely natural process in which whatever is symbiotically tied to expanding social mores is equally natural as well — making deity a totally real presence in this equation as well. If I’m wrong in the asumption that the growing expansion of generous social mores is as biologically intrinsic to our species as the drives for food, sex and sleep, then I’m wrong in everything else.

But the main reason why I term myself a “provisional atheist” is because, even though I’ve studied the pioneering atheists down the millennia rather extensively, there is still an outside possibility that I may yet come across a pioneering atheist (for that time and place) who also introduces a new ethical paradigm (for that time and place) at the same time. I haven’t found that yet, which is why I’m now a theist. But if I do find it, I guess I’d become an agnostic — which is what I was before embarking on my layman’s study of the history of pioneering atheists.

Cheers,

G Riggs

OOOOOOOPS!!!!!!!!!! ===============>

“But the main reason why I term myself a “provisional atheist”

=============> OOOOOPS!!!!! Make that “a ‘provisional THEIST’”!!!!!!!!!

. . . “is because, even though I’ve studied the pioneering atheists down the millennia rather extensively, there is still an outside possibility that I may yet come across a pioneering atheist (for that time and place) who also introduces a new ethical paradigm (for that time and place) at the same time. I haven’t found that yet, which is why I’m now a theist. But if I do find it, I guess I’d become an agnostic — which is what I was before embarking on my layman’s study of the history of pioneering atheists.”

Thanks,

G Riggs

Sorry, people: Didn’t mean to stymie further discussion [shrug].

Hope this exchange continues among the rest of you in a day or two.

Regrets,

The overly loquacious G Riggs

No, no. Not at all. Still digesting what you had to say. The weekend is on and it has other diversions.

Adios

I’ve just returned to my computer following a whole weekend away from the web! (Imagine that eh?)
I’ve read through G Riggs piece a couple of times, now I’m off to a dictionary, then I’ll read it again…

I’ve just returned to my computer following a whole weekend away from the web! (Imagine that eh?)
I’ve read through G Riggs piece a couple of times, now I’m off to a dictionary, then I’ll read it again…

LOL!!!!!

You just made my day!

Cheers,

G Riggs

There is admittedly one essential assumption/presumption that I make here at the outset, and if that is debunked, my whole argument clearly founders

I think I’ve spotted it. It’s the teleological error, rendering your whole analysis meaningless. Perhaps if you were to rephrase the thing in three simple sentences, it might have beauty, if not meaning. Would you care to give that a try?

Why on earth give that a try if it has less meaning? It’s a waste of time (perhaps this exchange is). It might afford you your jollies, but this forum is not here (I hope) to afford creeps the opportunity to derive laughs at others’ expense. Fundamentalists do that. You say I’ve made “the teleological error” (a la “the old knife in the hatbox trick” — Get Smart), but you don’t make clear how.

So how?

G Riggs

[…] and not only a truth-seeking society of men.”  At the risk of belaboring the issue (sorry Michael – I wrote this prior to your chastisement), this is where I have some trouble with The God […]

Sorry for the delay G Riggs, I missed it. The teleological error occurs when one tries to assess natural processes as if they had intention. For example, evolution towards something. Evolution happens, and living things live, but evolution doesn’t happen in order to produce living things. There is no purpose in the process. The process occurs because it is in the nature of things that it must. There are a continuing series of outcomes. Some of the outcomes say “all this is because of me you know” but that’s yer apes.
And one does appreciate one’s jollies, you too no? But I’m here for the content of the discussion and its twists, not to hurt your feelings. Sorry.
Tom