Atheist 'Bible' Anthology

[Daz Madrigal]

Sam Harris is critical of the stance of religious moderation, which he sees as essentially providing cover to religious extremism, while at the same time acting as an obstacle to progress in terms of pursuing what he considers to be more enlightened approaches towards spirituality and ethics.

So far, so good.

Well I agree with Sammy..so no probs, Piccione.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< Harris considers that the time is long overdue to reclaim morality and ethics for rational secular humanism, where he feels they have always properly belonged. He believes that the supposed link between faith and morality is a myth, not borne out by current statistical evidence. He notes, for instance, that the highly secular Scandinavian countries are among the most generous in terms of helping the developing world, as well as enjoying higher standards of living themselves according to a variety of indices. >>

Reclaim from where exactly?



There is no historical 'Secular Humanism' apart from a very short period in the 18th century.

Oh dear 'Scandinavia'..boring secular Socialist state that has the highest suicide rate in Europe. Pitifully predictable.

..as the Stranglers sang after their Scandinavian tour..'Let me tell you about Sweden' - Only place where the Clouds are Interesting.....Big Brother tells us its the place to go....So much time - So little to do.......So much Time - So little to do.


<< Cumulus Nimbus floats bye-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e >>

[Daz Madrigal]

<< But Harris goes further and posits that, far from being the source of our moral intuition, religion is a travesty of good ethical behavior >>

Go tell that to Stalin, Hitler and Chairman Mao, Sammy!

[Daz Madrigal]

<< More controversially, Harris has made an ethical argument in favor of the use of judicial torture under certain conditions. His reasoning is that we should reluctantly accept the use of torture in much the same way that we accept collateral damage in a war situation >>

Oh Dear..I didn't suggest following Stalin...literally, Sammy!

[Daz Madrigal]

Aren't the Pubs open, Piccolo?

[piccione]

I keep it short and sweet for Monday morning... ;D

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV7htWME2CA

[piccione]

To give the ‘real’ creationists a break, here is an article on another, related phenomenon, which shows that insanity isn’t the prerogative of theists. ;D

‘Secular creationism’ is a dangerous…err ‘viral infection’ most commonly found amongst the leftist academia (of sociology etc) and hard-line feminists.

The New Creationism – Biology Under Attack (Barbara Ehrenreich and Janet McIntosh)

[When social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth took the podium at a recent interdisciplinary seminar on emotions, she was already feeling rattled. Colleagues who'd presented earlier had warned her that the crowd was tough and had little patience for the reduction of human experience to numbers or bold generalizations about emotions across cultures. Ellsworth had a plan: She would pre-empt criticism by playing the critic, offering a social history of psychological approaches to the topic. But no sooner had the word "experiment" passed her lips than the hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males. Ellsworth agreed that white Victorian males had done their share of damage in the world but noted that, nonetheless, their efforts had led to the discovery of DNA. This short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to a halt with the retort: "You believe in DNA?"
More grist for the academic right? No doubt, but this exchange reflects a tension in academia that goes far deeper than spats over "political correctness." Ellsworth's experience illustrates the trend -- in anthropology, sociology, cultural studies and other departments across the nation -- to dismiss the possibility that there are any biologically based commonalities that cut across cultural differences. This aversion to biological or, as they are often branded, "reductionist" explanations commonly operates as an informal ethos limiting what can be said in seminars, asked at lectures or incorporated into social theory. Extreme anti-innatism has had formal institutional consequences as well: At some universities, like the University of California, Berkeley, the biological subdivision of the anthropology department has been relocated to another building -- a spatial metaphor for an epistemological gap.
Although some of the strongest rejections of the biological have come from scholars with a left or feminist perspective, antipathy toward innatist theories does not always score neatly along political lines. Consider a recent review essay by centrist sociologist Alan Wolfe in The New Republic. Wolfe makes quick work of Frank Sulloway's dodgy Darwinist claims (in Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives) about the influence of birth order on personality, but can't resist going on to impugn the motives of anyone who would apply biology to the human condition: In general, he asserts, "the biologizing of human beings is not only bad humanism, but also bad science."
For many social theorists, innate biology can be let in only as a constraint -- "a set of natural limits on human functioning," as anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has written. It has, from this point of view, no positive insights to offer into how humans think, act or arrange their cultures. For others, the study of innate human properties is not merely uninteresting but deeply misguided. Stanford philosopher of science John Dupré, for example, argues that it is "essentialist" even to think that we are a biological species in the usual sense -- that is, a group possessing any common tendencies or "universal properties" that might shed some light on our behavior. As feminist theorist Judith Butler puts it, "The very category of the universal has begun to be exposed for its own highly ethnocentric biases."
But the notion that humans have no shared, biologically based "nature" constitutes a theory of human nature itself. No one, after all, is challenging the idea that chimpanzees have a chimpanzee nature -- that is, a set of genetically scripted tendencies and potential responses that evolved along with the physical characteristics we recognize as chimpanzee-like. To set humans apart from even our closest animal relatives as the one species that is exempt from the influences of biology is to suggest that we do indeed possess a defining "essence," and that it is defined by our unique and miraculous freedom from biology. The result is an ideological outlook eerily similar to that of religious creationism. Like their fundamentalist Christian counterparts, the most extreme antibiologists suggest that humans occupy a status utterly different from and clearly "above" that of all other living beings. And, like the religious fundamentalists, the new academic creationists defend their stance as if all of human dignity -- and all hope for the future -- were at stake.]

[...]

[Daz Madrigal]

<< But the notion that humans have no shared, biologically based "nature" constitutes a theory of human nature itself. No one, after all, is challenging the idea that chimpanzees have a chimpanzee nature -- that is, a set of genetically scripted tendencies and potential responses that evolved along with the physical characteristics we recognize as chimpanzee-like. To set humans apart from even our closest animal relatives as the one species that is exempt from the influences of biology is to suggest that we do indeed possess a defining "essence," and that it is defined by our unique and miraculous freedom from biology. >>

Coincidentally William Lilly explains Spirituality as a 'shared human essence'. Its past midnight so to keep it short he compares it to the difference between an Artist painting a picture and the person as he is percieved through the 'eye'..or I suppose a photograph (err Lilly was born in the 1600's so didn't have access to a camera as such).

The Artist (aka Melon) looks at the persons face and then looks away so as to capture "the true essence" of the person in his/her "minds eye" therefore true artistry is able - in the hands of a good practioner! - to paint a more accurate description of the person than mere photography.

Obviously Lilly was talking about 'essence' in a slightly different way than the above but the parallels remain the same.

Its like a matchbox..all the matches are the same and contained within the same structure and alight - one hopes! - in the exactly the same respect whilst being still seperate within the box.

The Land of Nod awaits - Goode Nighte!

[piccione]

Good morning, congregation! ;D

Now what shall we talk about today?

I know - how about the significance of the human species....

Stephen Jay Gould:

[The human species has inhabited this planet for only 250,000 years or so- roughly .0015 percent of the history of life, the last inch of the cosmic mile. The world fared perfectly well without us for all but the last moment of earthly time- and this fact makes our appearance look more like an accidental afterthought than the culmination of a prefigured plan…We cannot read the meaning of life passively in the facts of nature. We must construct these answers ourselves- from our own wisdom and ethical sense. There is no other way.]

[piccione]

////Coincidentally William Lilly explains Spirituality as a 'shared human essence'.////

’Spirituality’ (in various forms) is a shared essence of the power of the conscious (human) mind. And in that sense Lilly’s comparison is very apt. This doesn’t deny or reject the ‘shared essence’ of biology though.

But spirituality is also essentially different to each human being, depending on their life experiences, talents, perceptions, susceptibilities etc. It may be ‘real’ and true to that individual, and greatly inspire and influence their lives. Yet although there might be shared (‘learned‘) /external/ ‘spiritual entities’, they never have exactly the same ‘realness’ or meaning for other people, since they have their own interpretations according to individual make-up, impressions/perceptions of their environment etc.

But why this need for an external 'spirit' or 'force'? I think is very dismissive and depreciative of the fascinating power of the (conscious) human mind. Why the reluctance to credit ourselves, our own minds, for the creative, healing and inspiring force? Is it because then we have to fully accept that the destruction, to self and others, this force can cause is also our own doing? In short, that we are fully responsible for ourselves?

[Daz Madrigal]

<< But why this need for an external 'spirit' or 'force'? >>

I'm not sure the word 'need' applies and if it does as some sort of crutch or delusion to help people come to terms with bereavement etc (to which it works to positive effect usually!)..then I'd suggest that a substantial number don't feel the need for this crutch and that indeed the very term - used with tedious frequency by rationalists! - is a derogatory jibe because it indicates that his opponent (metaphysician?) is in somehow crippled or mentally incapable. So words like 'need' and 'crutch' are bandied about willy nilly to anyway who dares to even question the so-called rationalist/reductionist viewpoint.

Lets use more apt words to describe the situation.

How about "Why does the belief in something other than oneself help Society?'. Even Eleora could no doubt draw up a long - if not concise! - list of positives. As a reader of the Bible she could bring down numerous stone tablets from Mount Sinai and list a host of excellent parables of which we are all aware. How can anyone, for example, airily dismiss the worthiness of "The Good Samaritan". I haven't even read the Bible..I gave up after 5 or 6 pages although with hindsight I could possibly I have passed entirely on the first few chapters and moved onto something more interesting.

Now there are numerous parables in the Bible to choose from "The Woman of Samaria" etc..but lets stick to the most commonly known. Who can say that it doesn't resonate - as does the Christmas Carol - with each and everyone of us. Well okay..I admit to Al Johnson 'is it a fact?' types, they may well be entirely immune to any emotion invoked whilst weeping at the death of another Dr. Who. ;D

I can name numerous 'Good Samaritan' moments and in turn I have occasionally been in the position of giver rather than recipient. On the one or two occasions I passed by with just a glance and swiftly moved on I later regretted it and it left an imprint much deeper than the few occasions I've given a helping hand or merely returned a dropped wallet.

My difference with the religion of say..the US Fundamentalists is that I don't suggest for a minute that it 'matters; in the slightest who the Good Samaritan is - thats totally immaterial. If its Dickie Dawkins then he "is" the Samaritan. And therein lies the whole problem with organised religion.

The strategy that should be used is to turn the debate on its head and ask the Rationalists and Atheists 'why they feel they are so important as Individuals?'. I could and have - with good effect - gone on the attack whilst managing to throw some light on the terrible deficiencies and potentially disastrous consequences of possessing what has to be a "fundamental" belief that the only real concern in like is what is inside oneself.

The flaws in a glorification of selfish individualism (such as the one espoused by Dawkins et all) are already riven throughout the modern world. Dawkins is a Pied Piper leading everyone on the Road to Nowhere.

[piccione]

///I'm not sure the word 'need' applies and if it does as some sort of crutch or delusion to help people come to terms with bereavement etc (to which it works to positive effect usually!)..then I'd suggest that a substantial number don't feel the need for this crutch and that indeed the very term - used with tedious frequency by rationalists! - is a derogatory jibe because it indicates that his opponent (metaphysician?) is in somehow crippled or mentally incapable. So words like 'need' and 'crutch' are bandied about willy nilly to anyway who dares to even question the so-called rationalist/reductionist viewpoint.///

Thank you for proving my point regarding the /amazing/ double standards of apologists (/selective/ apologists that is, for few Christian apologists would apologise Muslim beliefs).

It’s rather like tip-toeing around a child that hasn’t found out the truth about Father Christmas yet, so not to shatter their world: The enlightened adult is asked to play the game, so not to spoil it for the kid, and to pretend Santa truly exists.

Consequently, it is a ‘derogatory jibe’ (by the ‘enlightened adult’ ie atheist) to speak of ‘need’ (to the ‘innocent child’ ie theist), but the ‘enlightened adult’ has to bite their tongue and ‘turn the other cheek’ when the ‘innocent child’ tells them they lack the ‘rational’ moral basis (ie belief in ‘divine law’) for acting morally and ethically. /That/, the apologist says, is just an ‘innocent child’s’ careless remark, and /not/ a ‘derogatory jibe’, and the ‘enlightened adult’ should know better than to challenge 'the innocent child'.

I’m happy to play the ‘Santa lives’-game for the truly innocent child, but I won’t tiptoe around the adult who is trying to tell me that Santa not only exists, but that he also /created/ me, that I lack in morals and ethics, and that my life cannot be fulfilled and meaningful if I don’t accept all that.

Btw – ‘need for god’ is a phrase /regularly/ and /widely/ used by theists, but –of course- it’s /different/ when used by the ‘needy’ themselves ain’t it. Still - you said you hadn’t read much of the bible. Whereas /I/ have.

But I have yet to come across atheists who say they lack in moral fibre because they don’t believe in ‘divine law’, just as theists say the 'need' god.

Here are a few examples of ‘need of god’, as used by theists:

1. You need God to forgive you of your sins, those attitudes or actions that don't meet God's standards.
2. You need God to give you eternal life.
3. You need God to show you His purpose for your life.

Err nope I don’t.

//// Lets use more apt words to describe the situation. How about "Why does the belief in something other than oneself help Society?'///
. Even Eleora could no doubt draw up a long - if not concise! - list of positives. As a reader of the Bible she could bring down numerous stone tablets from Mount Sinai and list a host of excellent parables of which we are all aware. How can anyone, for example, airily dismiss the worthiness of "The Good Samaritan".///

These are, and always have been, secular values, as in /human/ values, detached from religion - which automatically includes atheists /as well as/ theists.

Besides I could name equally many bible passages that would land me in prison if I acted upon them. But since you haven’t read the bible you're obviously unaware of them....

///My difference with the religion of say..the US Fundamentalists is that I don't suggest for a minute that it 'matters; in the slightest who the Good Samaritan is - thats totally immaterial. If its Dickie Dawkins then he "is" the Samaritan. And therein lies the whole problem with organised religion.///

Like I said, they are /human/ values. I don’t exclude theists from these, obviously. Although many theists like to exclude atheists – in response to which I can only say that requirements of morality and ethics go far beyond being /told/ what to do by a ‘divine authority’, or by a human authority for that matter. And sometimes morality and ethics even demand resistance to such an authority.

///The strategy that should be used is to turn the debate on its head and ask the Rationalists and Atheists 'why they feel they are so important as Individuals?'///

The flaw in that question is that it would only be relevant or revealing if atheism was the only defining characteristic of people who happen to /not/ belief in a god. Which, clearly, it is not.

Atheist are defined by their non-belief when confronted with theism. If there were no theists, there would be no atheists.

////I could and have - with good effect - gone on the attack whilst managing to throw some light on the terrible deficiencies and potentially disastrous consequences of possessing what has to be a "fundamental" belief that the only real concern in like is what is inside oneself.////

....which would (if it were so), in terms of ‘potentially disastrous consequences’, differ /how/ exactly from possessing a ‘fundamental belief that the only real concern’ is what is to be found /outside/ oneself – ie in an /external/ spiritual entity?

But your ‘attack’ contains the same flaw as above: Atheism is defined by the existence of theism, and by that alone. Which means that atheism affects the atheist’s life only when confronted with theism. /Theism/ on the other hand is not defined by atheism, but by a fundamental belief in an ever present god, a ‘spiritual entity’ (and the doctrine linked with that entity) which impacts on theists’ lives /at all times/, no matter whether they are confronted with atheism or not.

///The flaws in a glorification of selfish individualism (such as the one espoused by Dawkins et all) are already riven throughout the modern world. Dawkins is a Pied Piper leading everyone on the Road to Nowhere.///

To measure all atheism by the standards of Richard Dawkins is a bit like measuring the standards of all theism by those of José Luis de Jesús Miranda.

Even I wouldn't go that far.

[Daz Madrigal]

No no no no no.

I think thats a sufficient number for now. No 'attack', Piccione..if there was an 'attack' you'd know about it!

The Bible is just an out-dated guide book that shows a few old Roman roads and mud strewn pathways which would explain the lack of any real need to read it.

As for the rest...erm 12.30 a.m.s even somewhat inconvenient for me - can't you write in the morning without over-exciting the brain too much.

I'd suggest your post was a slight over-reaction..almost hysteric.

[piccione]

No no no no no.

That’s no good. Had to cross you off the list of potential candidates. We can’t have an utter /coward/ for our atheist messiah! All words and no substance.....

After all the err…opposition has Arnie on their side....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nOEI8LZrNE

What now eh?

If only Gus hadn’t been banned..... <sigh>

[Daz Madrigal]

Why is it that everytime I write afew words I'm assumed to be 'attacking' or 'ranting'

Its a bizarre assumption as silly as the idea that I can in any way be 'pinned down' on anything. Moreover I "know" I can't be pinned down because I cannot even pin down myself in any way. For example, every time I use Astrology and get the result correct it is as much a surprise to me than to the recipient - in fact its even MORE of a surprise!. How can I pinned down let alone "pigeon-holed" when there is no hole to reside in. Every day is like emerging from an eggshell, there are no set beliefs..its merely a new dawn and a new day. If I wake up!

Theism v Atheism?

Two bald men arguing over a comb.

Conclusion 1) Never take any note of something written by an author desperately trying to foist his philosophy an unsuspecting and gullible public, who goes by the name of Nathaniel Mendoza.

Nathan possibly, Nathaniel no!!. Use a more sensible, less portentous user name such as Daz Madrigal or Billy childish.



The usage of the assumption 'need to believe in God/Buddha/whatever is a false one. Mr. Piccolo after complaining about stereotypes has no compunction whatsoever in using stereotypes to describe everyone who doesn't happen to agree with him. A bad mistake.

The World is full of cracker barrel philosophers yet somehow the majority of us manage to survive and cope perfectly well without their kind ministrations on what path we should take. The only path worth following is your own, at the very least its full of surprises. Experience tells us that the very people who scoff at the belief systems of others - and what is science or communism if not a belief system? - yet on countless occasions these self same people are busy reading 'self help books' and on one occasion evangelically enthusing about some pulp entitled 'Men are from Mars, Women from Venus.or even worse 'The Path Least Followed'. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with such books. Yet they find no irony in reading and being dictated to by our modernist replacements in a desperate grasp for some 'meaning'.. One may as well compare Mills and Boon to Chaucer and Shakespeare or Damian Hirst to Da Vinci. Its hard to find the evolution present in such artistry...more a regression into infantilism.

I'm happy to be criticised for coming to the defence of Eleora the Christian. Not because I share her beliefs but she is in a no win situation but yet cannot fail to be the winner. Let me explain. Despite huge differences I am honour bound to support the true underdog. Its very difficult debating against what appears to be an entire board. Yet she has to be the Winner by definition simply because she exudes an inner calm and serenity that arms the believer with an inner strength that the increasingly rabid detractors simply do not possess. Why else would the believer live longer and more peaceably than the nonbeliever if this was not the case.

Of course that doesn't mean that she is necessarily right. Puccini is really expressing opinions..or rather copying and pasting opinion. The Theism v Atheism debate is a hackneyed one. I can only waste time on such a pursuit. One wonders why Porcine is so avid in this pursuit..it would be surprising if he were like me and even more surprising if there wasn't a hidden agenda behind his interests. Even Sandy loses patience eventually in these circular arguments.

We've seen it all before..the endless 5 yr battle between Doc Turner and various Muslims, Hindus, Christians until one day he met his match. What was its purpose...five years wasted with a mass of verbiage left in the vast canyon known as H2G2. Five years of pure pseudo-intellectualism, scoring meaningless points and attempting - and failing to impress by quoting Wittgenstein, Sartre and the usual culprits.

A laughable waste of time. Meanwhile Eleora sits quietly in the garden - what a good idea!