Christopher Hitchens vs. Ken Blackwell of The Family Research Council
Ken Blackwell of The Family Research Council (Self-described as a "Christian organization promoting the traditional family unit and the Judeo-Christian value system upon which it is built") goes up against Christopher Hitchens on the topic of Christianity in America.
I love the stray lock of hair dangling across Hitchens' forehead as he blithley shoots his deadly barbs.
the latest
latest episodes
It is my experience that most groups with the word "family" in them are a bunch of religious zealots. In NZ we have a political party called the Family Party. There is also a lobby group called Family First. They both speak of the value of "traditional family values".
I love Blackwell's " I'm not going to let you bogart me" after asking a direct question. It's the classic - I don't like your answers, so I am going to pretend that you are monopolizing the conversation.
Anyone have a link to the Meacham article that Hitchens mentions?
I never cease to be amused by terms like "the Judeo-Christian value system" ... Christians really think they understand Judaism, but they don't even come close... not that it really matters, because Christ's message supposedly abrogates the Judaic law and replaces it with "love thy neighbor as thyself."
Of course, they miss that too, preferring the teachings of the Pharisee Saul (sometimes strangely called the "apostle" Paul) and completely missing the forest of Christ's gospel for the trees of legalism and dogma.
*sigh* As much as I dislike Hitchens' rabid atheism, it's much simpler than trying to explain to Christians that they in no way, shape or form resemble the people they supposedly emulate....
"if you don't know that, you don't know anything."
lol
Love how Blackwell mentions "The Pilgrims" as founders and then talks about "historical accuracy"..oh my...
I just wish they'd stop identifying Christopher Hitchens as a 'Vanity Fair columnist' and start introducing him as 'the man that ripped Mother Teresa a new asshole'.
Wow, was Hitchens drunk?
re: #1 - saw a bumper sticker recently, "Focus on your own damned family".
At one point Blackwell says something like "...based on judeo christian values like individualism" which I really don't think is a particularly christ like value, at least not in the typical religious right interpretation which is "I get to do what I want and to hell with anyone else".
#9. most likely. Hitchens is a toad of a man, full of a smug britishness that manages to offend everyone eloquently even whilst completely tanked.
he's far more entertaining that dawkins to watch or listen to. (although i enjoy dawkins on paper)
Note that this is the same Ken Blackwell who, as secretary of state, presided over the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
Yeah, he kinda looks it. The hunched-down posture, dead-looking skin: ugh.
I dunno, I think Hawkins's What if you're wrong?
response to a young woman questioning him is a high point of the neo-athiest, or whatever, movement. "If you'd been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings you'd believe in Wotan and Thor." As nasty as Hitchens, but clearly enunciated, and without that tremulous, slipped-cog delivery.
#12 well he's also like 60 years old. So between a lifetime of drinking and smoking he's not doing tooo bad.
Don't forget street fighting.
If he'd drop the "I'm George Orwell" shtick and get beat down more often in fights, he'd be kinda cool....
These shows are always so frustrating to watch. Each person only gets to start a thought before being talked over by the other guy. I think the hosts of these shows should be able to individually mute the guest's microphones and let each guest finish a statement one at a time.
The neo-atheist movement could use some more charismatic spokespeople.
As a former Catholic I understand why it can be hard for people of faith to let go of their deeply held beliefs, and the condescending tone that Hitchens and others often use just alienates potential converts.
If I had to have a civil crossfire discussion with a leading rabid triumphalist like that, I'd drink beforehand too.
I'm getting more than a little teed off at this "traditional Judeo-Christian heritage" schtick.
There wasn't any love for the Judeo part of this supposed partnership for hundreds of years of European occupation in this country. Now all of a sudden they need to boost their numbers to appear powerful and in control so they oh-so-graciously let the Jews in to their little clubhouse.
I ain't buying it.
Hitchens reminds me of a drunk, bullying professor at an after-class discussion session. He knows far more than you do, and you both know this, yet he still needs to rub your face in it. Yes, he's better read, and infinitely better educated, and dammit, he knew the prophets personally -- in fact, he gave Ezekiel a C-minus for not organizing his rants according to the Oxford Style Guide.
#14 says he's doing the I'm George Orwell shtick, which is quite apt, although I think he thinks he's doing Churchill.
He also has a tendency to shoot fish in a barrel rather than going for the harder challenges.
Yet, despite the annoyances, arrogance, and other turn-offs, he's right with a disturbing frequency.
Wow, even for an idiot christian dogmatist, Blackwell comes across as an idiot. His insistence on the ' Judeo-Christian value system', as if 'morals' where invented by some cabal of rabbis and priests in the last thousand years, is completely laughable.
The message that I think really needs to get into the nation's dialog is that most of the founders of america were, if not atheists, then at very least not strongly religious men.
While those of us who've studied the matter know that, I sincerely doubt that the majority of americans have ever heard such a thing.
@ #11 -- Yes, the very same Ken Blackwell that RFK Jr. has outright accused of rigging the 2004 election, who Rolling Stone once named one of the worst people in America (though I think RFK Jr. wrote that article too.)
I quite like Hitchens - he's got a nice speaking voice and he's very calm and polite.
Isn't Hitchens' characterization of Benjamin Franklin as an atheist inaccurate? I believe he identified himself as a deist.
(Disclaimer: I hold to the Apostle's Creed (http://www.crcna.org/pages/apostles_creed.cfm))
Atheism purports to be an apprehension of reality. Therefore I must not judge atheism based on its adherents, but on the evidence. If Hitchens is a frog, a drunk, or not (I don't think he is; I kind of like him though I believe he is tragically mistaken) it has no relevance to whether his position is correct or not.
Similarly Christian beliefs are in no way dependent upon their adherents. However, we as believers are supposed to work hard at presenting well in order not to provide more obstacles to others giving the gospel a genuine hearing. Alas, we all are much less than perfect.
Christianity is based on historical events. Christ rose from the dead as an actual historical event, recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era. It is of absolute importance for us to be accurate about what happened in history. Thus when Mr. Blackwell is way off regarding 'the founders' (who were deists, not theists, never mind Christians, as Hitchens correctly points out) it is doubly upsetting.
Mixing the City of God and the City of Man (Augustine) leads ever to nonsense. God's claims are absolute, but within them human cultures operate, now in rebellion, now in indifference, now in fragile and temporary obedience of a sort. We as believers participate in the public square, but to argue that any human institution (including the Vatican!) has ever been 'Christian' is confounding the two Cities and skewing the views of both.
America is not and never has been a 'Christian nation'. It is a nation that has happened to have a great many Christians (real believers and those who claim to be but are not) living and participating in it. But there is only one Christian Nation, the Church Invisible, which is the communion of saints living and dead.
libelle "He also has a tendency to shoot fish in a barrel rather than going for the harder challenges."
Two points:
1) It's a big barrel jam packed with fish that need shooting.
2) He did debate William Lane Craig (whose probably the best Christian apologist/debater around) recently*.
* and it must be said that Hitchens, being a polemicist rather than a debater, got his ass handed to him).
Poustman,
If that were Mr. Blackwell, he would have at least critiqued Hitchens' dreary and ill-fitting ensemble.
#20 Isn't Hitchens' characterization of Benjamin Franklin as an atheist inaccurate? I believe he identified himself as a deist.
That's right - Hitchens is wrong on that point. I've studied Franklin for years, and he was a very strong believer in a supreme being with attributes very similar to those believed in by Christians, though he definitely shied away from participating in any of the established religions of the time.
"Christianity is based on historical events. Christ rose from the dead as an actual historical event, recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era."
So true. its amazing how crowed it is up there in heaven since pretty much every sacred texts is self confirming. If the "bible" (not to open a can of worms on all the non included books) says the bible is true than what it says in the bible happened.
all of them are historical fact.
HERURAHA, very well said. And wow, this was an ugly wreck of a "discussion". Hitchens came off as a drunk dickhead, and Blackwell looked like a rube. I blame it mostly on the ineffective host who did nothing to prevent Blackwell from somehow politely monopolizing most of the air time without saying anything. And Hitchens did nothing to advance his cause, I don't care how much American history he has committed to memory or how snarky he can sound with his English accent. He was incredibly condescending and superior.
HeruRaHa @ #4
"Judeo-Christian" is a term popularized in the 1930's to promote religious tolerance and counter antisemitism in the US.
Ironically, now it's being wielded as a club against atheists/agnostics - and not least - Muslims.
Which is just an unbelievable load of horseshit. A religion that explicitly believes in the Torah and Bible, and that anyone who lives virtuously following either of those texts will go to Heaven - is supposedly not "Judeo-Christian"?
Anyway, religious folks should be *happy* the USA is not a 'Christian nation'. The European countries that've had a state religion have much lower rates of religious practice. E.g. Norway still has a state church, and less than 10% of Norwegians regularly attend church services for any religion. (as opposed to something like 70% in the USA)
#24
"Christ rose from the dead as an actual historical event, recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era."
Pray tell, where? And by whom?
coop
#31
"Christ rose from the dead as an actual historical event, recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era."
Pray tell, where? And by whom?"
Didn't you see that copy of the 32 AD/CE paper laying around? It was in this huge, bold font across the mast-head.
Doesn't anyone else find it curious that the religious nut uses the drug-related term, "bogart"? How would he know what bogart means? And after he sarcastically asks Hitchens if he might be able to speak, he then monopolizes the discussion. As soon as any religious nut starts talking about historical accuracy, my ears begin to close of their on accord.
Why do you say Hitchens is drunk? He is coherent and he doesn't slur his words. That's like saying the religious guy is a drug user because he said the word bogart.
blackwell is one of the stupidest people i have seen in a while.
#31 coop
Approximately the same people who gave us the story of Gawain and the Green Knight, or the rest of the Arthurian legend. The New Testament seen as fact is ridiculous, read as poetry it's astonishing.
@Anonymous #29: USAmericans tend to find the English condescending. Some don't like it, but some do.
The resulting questions are more interesting. "*Why* do they find the English condescending?"
#31 coop
Let me guess, the bible!
Fact: a picture of Mr. Blackwell now appears in the dictionary next to the entry for "shit-eating grin."
#15 "These shows are always so frustrating to watch."
I agree, but the need to shout over your opponent is definitely planned. Fox News perfected the art of inviting polite opponents for "dialogue" and never letting them get two words in during the ten minute slot unless they shouted too. MSNBC, taking on the role of The Liberal Fox News, is only following suit.
As for the mic idea, O'Reilly already has one. Guess how he uses it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCS_qshV0
#19 "Hitchens reminds me of a drunk, bullying professor at an after-class discussion session."
Yes, but given the blithe ignorance that man has to slog through on a daily basis, I doubt I'd be any nicer were I in his shoes.
#31 "Pray tell, where? And by whom?"
Why, by several independent eyewitness accounts - Saint Matthew, Saint John AND Saint Paul. Collated for your convenience into one portable volume!
Except #24 Poustman knows some historical document he is not telling us...
Great clip, and great comments... my personal favorite is that jesus' resurrection is historical fact.
I don't get why someone is seen as "rabid" when they are simply pointing out that they don't believe in fairy tales or superstition.
#35: He doesn't. The key phrase comes just after the assertion in question: "recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era."
We're talking two thousand years ago. Most "historical events of the era" are preserved only as anecdotes to the writings of men who were told the stories by their grandparents, who may have seen it firsthand or may have heard it from a drunken merchant who was told it by a shepherd. If no one questions the resurrection being solid fact, fantastic. If anyone does, there's an easy out, and a decent segue into talking about the Bible's well-preservedness for paragraph at a time.
The rest of his post incorporates much the same easily-twistable language. It's really a great example of weaselly apologetics. Notice how he claims to support the separation of church and state, while not precluding defense of faith-based legislature. He also endorses the Christian church while denouncing every denomination; this allows him to support the actions of any random Christian he likes while denouncing those he doesn't as "not really Christian." In fact, he talks a very great deal without actually saying anything substantiative. Any response to him other than "fuck you, get out" can be twisted in his favor.
In retrospect, perhaps more respect is due. 3/10 sir, but deserving of much more. Damn nice try. Might I suggest a slightly less informed location to repost this? Perhaps one with an abundance of Christians who'll jump to your defense? Let us know, I'd like to watch.
IMPORTANT
Anyone who doesn't believe that this country (US) was founded on "faith-based" principles need look no further than the reverse side of the Great Seal of The United States (the "Eye of Providence"). That seal was adopted in 1782, and first appeared on the US dollar in 1935. There can be no doubt that the US was founded by a group of men who had a very strong "faith-based" belief system.
This symbol means many things to many people. One thing is certain, the Great Seal was designed by either initiates of the Rose Cross or of the Illuminati. Both of these organizations are Gnostic (they say as much in their published writings). In the work entitled "Fundamental Laws, 68th Convocation" (1916), published by the Order of the Rose Cross, the mystic significance of the Seal is described. You read this book for free, if you would like. I found it by searching books.google.com.
The Roman Empire in the first century CE kept tolerably good records. Judaea was a strategically located province with a fair amount of political and military action and a religion that was intriguing to cosmopolitan Romans. There's not really a dearth of historical detail and confirmation for many events in that time and place.
Roman recordkeeping sucked.
They said King Herod died in 4 BCE, and Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6 CE, when it's established fact that Jesus was born before Herod's death (Matthew 2:1) but after Quirinius began his governence (Luke 2:1).
Matthew and Luke are established, factual eyewitnesses? All this time I thought that they were propagandists who lived after the events in question.
Beelzebuddy, and how it is supposed to prove that that that the Roman recordkeeping sucked?
Antinous / Moderator "There's not really a dearth of historical detail and confirmation for many events in that time and place."
Oh, really? Then how come nobody from the time mentions the dead getting up and wandering around Jerusalem (Matt27 52-53), hmmm?! Who are you going to believe, Saint Matthew or some dirty Romans?
Well, there's two of them and only one Roman record, and if you skip forward to 300 CE there's like a thousand copies of the Bible scattered around and still only one Roman one, so I think we know which is the more reliable source here.
The bible still counts as one document, have it 1 or 1 bazilion copies made by the fans of the book.
@beelzebuddy
Yeah, but all that proves is that the first Christians weren't as good at protecting their IP as the Romans.
#52 Normally, sure, but the sheer number and geographical diversity of biblical remnants ensures that it's closer than any other document of that time to factual accuracy. Any putative error can be cross-referenced by looking up one of the more far-flung copies.
The Romans may have been meticulous in their record keeping to a degree unmatched for hundreds of years after their fall, but everyone's gotta be wrong sooner or later. That's human nature.
@beelzebuddy, you're joking, right? The number of copies made of a text has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of the contents within. They're two completely different matters.
IIRC, in the story of the resurrection, Jesus's body is put into the tomb after his death. No one has their eye on the body for 3 days. At which time a man that no one recognizes shows up, shows off his stigmata and tells everyone he's Jesus.
I just don't think that story would hold up in court today...
beelzebuddy, that's like saying that the number and geographic distribution of Homer's epics are a guarantee of the factual-historical accuracy of the texts. They're not, lemme tell ya.
Duh.
also- the body was missing, but the stone had been moved..... by God.
beelzebuddy, you're joking, right?
Yes. I've been joking the entire time, gradually turning into a parody of xian apologetics applied to a situation where the bible is almost certainly wrong. If I had been an actual apologist I'd have ignored Antinous's post, knowing I had no chance of not looking like an ass.
You'll usually see the Bible-copies-as-historical-proof argument trotted out when someone implies that what's written down may not have been exactly what lil J said. It's not such a terrible argument in that context, though as always there are a few glossed-over logical flaws.
#45 posted by Foofer
Anyone who doesn't believe that this country (US) was founded on "faith-based" principles need look no further than the reverse side of the Great Seal of The United States (the "Eye of Providence"). That seal was adopted in 1782, and first appeared on the US dollar in 1935. There can be no doubt that the US was founded by a group of men who had a very strong "faith-based" belief system.
On the other hand, anyone who *does* believe that this country (US) was founded on the specific Christian faith need look no further than the Treaty of Tripoli (1796), initiated by George Washington, unanimously ratified, and signed into law by John Adams: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
You bad man or woman, you.
Nora Rocket "On the other hand, anyone who *does* believe that this country (US) was founded on the specific Christian faith need look no further than..."
...the Constitution (and the Federalist Papers for background). Everything besides that pales.
Sadly, all the good stuff has been run through.
I would like to say that atheism needs a good charismatic public figure, the ones we've got are kind of old.
There's no reason people can't come to an atheist conclusion without being old.
I'm 18, and I'll take down 95% of the Christian apologetics you throw at me with Google and a copy of Nietzsche's The Antichrist.
Try me.
Virgin birth was attested to Plato, Socrates, and many other famous persons of the era - it was a common way to attribute sacred character to their writings. Most of the things that were attributed to Jesus happened to other people of that era as well, the difference is that Jesus's memory got hijacked by a very powerful hierarchy which was able to construct a religion and eliminate the things (and competing groups) they didn't like.
I am a Christian who considered becoming a minister but reconsidered. I don't believe in all the magic, or in God for that matter, but still consider myself Christian. I have never understood why it's so important for Jesus to be magic to accept that he had a pretty good suggestion about the best way to live - - -
I tend to agree with Hitchens, but he's a dick. He is a genius, and only an idiot would agree to debate him about anything.
You don't have to subscribe to all the crap associated with Christianity to still be a Christian. People like Blackwell or "Poustman" will try to tell you that you're not really a Christian but a "real" Christian would know that it's God's call, not anyone here on earth, regardless of whether I believe in "him" or not.
This "debate" just affirms how much t.v. sucks. A whole lot of crap from two idiots who don't listen to or care about the other's thoughts. I'm sick of watching this format. There was no intellectual advancement from either side, no-one learned anything and we all wasted 8 minutes of our short lives watching people not give a crap. Can't wait for the next one.
As a Christian and an Ohioan, let me just say that Blackwell is a totally evil weed.
#65: you missed the opportunity to end with:
"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
For anyone who thinks there is any historical accuracy in the bible, let me point you towards a biblical scholar named Hector Avalos.
There is a two-part video of him speaking, which you can see here. The talk is entitled "How Archaeology Killed Biblical History".
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514
Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260956154287964220&hl=en
He also wrote a book entitled The End of Biblical Studies.
Let me sum it up for you in one sentence.
Biblical scholars, people who spend their entire careers studying the bible, don't believe that any of it is historically accurate.
The end.
I propose a final jihad: thinkers versus believers. Believers will have the edge in sheer viciousness, but I think the thinkers will ultimately win.
"Let your faith light the world, set fire to the church of your choice today"
This has nothing to do with the discussion at large but I just wanted to point out that Blackwell is in the studio of WCET-TV, a public television station in Cincinnati.
So much for liberal media, eh? ;)
A quick bit of link-whoring. The "focus on your own damned family" bumper stickers mentioned above are available here:
http://www.cafepress.com/lavenderliberal/2505694
(I have no connection at all), and the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified 1797, & also mentioned above, is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
The famous article 11 reads:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Killing two threads with one quote. Christopher Hitchens on beliefs and totalitarianism.
Hitchens is a crusty old dude...and I love him for it.
Takuan "I propose a final jihad: thinkers versus believers."
Can't we all just get stoned and play Nintendo instead?
The only part of The Bible that is of true importance is the ministry of Jesus.
He sacrificed all in worship of Love In The Highest, and that is the example he set for us who aspire to be in service to The Greater Good. To be a member, then, of the Sacred Service, that is what you must be prepared to do: Sacrifice all for the sake of The Greater Good.
The mission of Jesus was to help people understand that there is a war going on, a war of love vs. fear (hate being derived from fear), NOT to establish a religion in his name.
(In fact, that is the LAST thing he would have wanted.)
In this war, love will be our sword and our shield.
Yesterday I, a straight male, marched in solidarity with gays in their quest for justice. I marched in the name of Love In The Highest because I know that The Lord would not create a gay person and would not create a straight person without loving both equally and intending that they have equal rights.
Ultimately, Love In The Highest will always defeat hate, even if the latter wears the disguise of a religion.
I like the part where Jesus cleanses the Temple. I don't really know or care why he did it, I just think he was ballsy and pissy and I like that Jesus.
I like it when Jesus says "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." Ol' Jeezy, original gangsta.
(I hate it when they talk like that!)
Maxson, beautifully said.
However, to paraphrase our christian brethren, god did not create gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgendered people, they have made a choice to be gay, etc. and they can bloody well choose to be straight if they weren't such unrepentant, sick, disgusting, and debauched sinners.
On the other hand, to quote a great bumper sticker, "Gay by birth, fabulous by choice."
After reading through the comments, I am forced again to the conclusion I came to years ago. Using rational, articulate, and clear prose is an utter waste of time when speaking to people about faith. The debate has nothing to do with logic and cannot be won by any branch thereof. If it could be, mankind would have rid itself of the yolk of organized religion centuries ago.
Suffice to say that Hitchens -- however ugly or mean or (god forbid!) British he is, is 100% correct in stating that people of faith are all for freedom of religion -- as long as it is their religion. To suggest anything else is disingenuous.
Forget this interview. Read Hitchens' book.
Oh -- and on the issue of whether Franklin was Christian or not: Given all of the underage French girls he had sex with, I am guessing he was. Though, to be fair, headlines over the span of my lifetime strongly suggest that Christian men here in America prefer young choir boys. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Colbert said that reality has a liberal bias.
It also has an atheist bias as well.
Humans are excellent at adaptation... it is their one true gift and their ultimate curse.
I hope one day, we can stop lying to ourselves. But I won't hold my breath.
Robert Trivers has done some excellent research on humans' capability for self-deception. He wrote about this in the forward to The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
The debate has nothing to do with logic and cannot be won by any branch thereof.
We elect our government the same way.
We elect our government the same way.
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies by Bryan Caplan
Since someone mentioned it earlier, here's a segment of the Craig v Hitchens debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4
Notice that Hitchens does not answer the first question - in fact he imputes a sentiment to the speaker that the speaker never says - and then even later, when he comes so close to exactly where he would answer it, avoids it again. This is because Hitchens is a sophist not actually interested in truth or honest debate. (Blackwell is probably this, and is certainly a fool.) Every time I see Hitchens speak, he merely uses power of rhetoric to avoid the questions, makes a few "god is silly and believers are stupid" remarks, which are the equivalent of the "atheists are all immoral" from the Christian side, and the choir doesn't notice that he didn't actually answer anything. This is in philosophical discussions alone - he's certainly right to point out Jefferson's practical atheism, although he avoids mention of any of the many Christian founders (not that it would matter anyway, as America's Christian founding, or lack of it, rests in the documents and not the biographies of its founders, but that's Blackwell's fault for framing the 'debate' that way). When it comes to talking philosophy/theology, though, all he has is dishonest rhetorical techniques.
The real problem I have with Hitchens isn't his sophistry, though. It's that he has the same partisan tactics of the believers he criticizes for imposing morality, and usually takes it one step further. As PZ Myers said:
"Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php
How Hitchens has become the spokesman of a new atheism by, basically, parroting Richard Dawkins but without the academic credentials to back it up astonishes me. And that he continues to be welcomed when one of the main arguments against religion (which he makes himself) is the bad behavior of its adherents.
the problem with the religious in the US is that like Blackwell here they have no idea or interest in knowing anything outwith their own Sky Daddy crap.
They don't know a pilgrim from a founder, a Jew from a Xian, the constitution from the bill of rights nor their arse from their elbow.
THey think themselves righteous and all who oppose them as an evil of supernatural origin.
They endlessly regurgitate their dogma, and if they need to dabble in the factual, bend the world to mirror the model in their heads.
Screw the facts.
Hitchens is successful, because he is entertaining. His use of acerbic wit, rhetoric, and manner of speech are precisely what these entertainment/fake news shows desire. Hitchens gets ratings.
What Hitchens is proposing is in fact self-defense. Sometimes self-defense means killing them all, it is horrible, it does suck, all these religious warriors need do to be spared a strike from a UAV is drop their weapons, go home, and mind their own business. However, there is a power hungry clergy who cares more for wealth and power than the lives of its followers.
They manipulate the truth, which I wager they themselves never believed, to convince men, women, and children to leave their families and sacrifice their lives for a lie.
#85 Yes, i'd have to agree. The main issue is not even that it's Christians per-say, it's that it is a group of theists who want nothing more then to put more people of their faith in power. I doubt if they care or know that those people share the same views as them, and they don't because frankly none of them know or follow the teaching of the faith they so vocally flaunt as the moral fiber of society.
Ah, I want the YouTube of Bertrand Russell, myself.
Check out Hitchens' debate with Frank Turek on YouTube. It's eye-opening for a lot of reasons.
@#1 - here in NYC we have the "Working Families" party. They're basically socialists. (They ran Obama for president, for whatever that's worth)
@ 58
I always thought it was Leon Russell who rolled away the stone.
What if Christopher Hitchens is God..?
I guess that the "Working" supersedes "Families" in signifying power.
(and the Obama:Socialist connection is worth, of course, absolutely nothing)
I await the day when Muslim corrects its course and we stop using the word "Judeo-Christian" and start using the word "Abrahamic". Just because, you know, it's a neat word.
Abrahamic? I prefer "hairy sky-guy who yells a lot".
#24: If the story of Christ's life & death was a historical event, it is one of the least well documented major events of the era. There is no independent confirmation outside of the New Testament. Every other major event during the period, we have multiple sources writing in often exhaustive detail (see Josephus, for instance). But of this Christ character, there is not one contemporaneous peep other than a line from Josephus widely thought to be a medieval insertion. Nothing at all -- not one word, not one inscription, not one graffito.
Which really has nothing to do with whether Christianity is a worthwhile religion or not -- its lack of historical documentation is hardly a unique circumstance.
RoAch "This is because Hitchens is a sophist not actually interested in truth or honest debate."
Craig is also interested in neither. Craig wins debates, not because he's right, but because he's been working on that script for most of his adult life. He's got the timing down perfectly, and he has quick asides should his opponent actually point out a chink in his armour. He both frames the debate (forcing the other guy to refute all of his points in seven minutes and build their own case, which is a practical impossibility) and he consistently debates people who, and this is the part that chaps my hide, let him do it. Almost every damn time.
Hitchens is all rhetoric with no footnotes. Craig is the Gish gallup, but with philosophy framed as science.
This, I think, is more the fault of the rules of debate than the hubris of its actors. Debate isn't about consensus, it's about victory.
Anonymous "Check out Hitchens' debate with Frank Turek on YouTube."
Frank "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" Turek? Against a fact-centric and biblically-knowledgeable opponent, Turek would face an uphill battle.
"It's eye-opening for a lot of reasons."
It's infuriating how little science Hitchens knows (I have much the same reaction when Dawkins talks about morality, as he seems to have stopped learning about it at around the same time that we started looking at, say, Gorillas in the Mist). That said, Turek is a knob (as the link above should illustrate).
Keneke I await the day when Muslim corrects its course and we stop using the word "Judeo-Christian" and start using the word "Abrahamic". Just because, you know, it's a neat word."
I await the day when everybody knocks their rough edges off and start calling themselves "Citizens of the Earth". I plan on waiting awhile. I stocked up. Beans, mostly.
"Christianity is based on historical events. Christ rose from the dead as an actual historical event, recorded with as much or more detail and confirmation as any historical event of the era."
What nonsense! Like most Bible loving Christians, you don’t actually read the Bible (studying a few lines at a time in bible study doesn’t count) and you know absolutely nothing about Biblical scholarship. Here are a few actual facts about your historic “proof:”
*The last 12 verses of Mark (the resurrection) were not a part of the original text.
*Each of the “passion” and resurrection descriptions differ dramatically—read them side by side rather than merging them into a meta-text.
*Matthew, Mark and Luke draw upon a common (lost) source for much of their material, but then add text and make changes that result in unique and often contradictory perspective.
*The gospels are not contemporary to Christ—they span a 150 year plus period (60 to 200 CE). They differ from one another in significant ways and reflect the issues of their day. Jesus is quite the Jew in some of the Bible—that tends to be overlooked by most modern Christians
*There were numerous other religions of that period that also claimed a resurrection. The proof found in those was about as convincing as Christianity.
*There are two non-biblical references to Jesus within 100 years of his death (in both he was refered t as a rabbi
Mike
Incidentally, if Craig had to sign BIOLA's Statement of Faith (and I have no reason to assume otherwise) he, not surprisingly, avoids mentioning the following in debate:
Why? Because denying common ancestory (in effect, believing the evidence except when it conflicts with, well, a bunch of Genesis) automatically puts him at a considerable disadvantage...which is probably why he avoids debates that come anywhere near it and frames debates to avoid it.
Also;
...indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Methodological naturalism isn't perfect, but it's by far the best way we've found to learn how things actually work. Science + majik is no longer science. It's woo.
...but I'm drifting off-topic. I do that, sometimes.
Y'know, this reminds me of the time I drifted off-topic...
@Mike - what religions claim a resurrection? Mithra? I don't know of too many, especially ones that place a central, or even a high, value on resurrection for either their god or their believers.
@Modus - that could very well be true about Craig. I only heard of him because of the poster above mentioning him, and went to check out the debate, so this is all I know of him. All I can say is that his script is a common one, and you'd think Hitchens (or the New Atheists in general) would have a response to it by now. I didn't read him as philosophy dressed up as science, though - while he mentions some scientific theories like the heat death of the universe, he seemed only to be concerned with their philosophical effects, rather than looking into any of the science. I had read that he's a creationist, though, which is unfortunate.
Roach "All I can say is that his script is a common one, and you'd think Hitchens (or the New Atheists in general) would have a response to it by now."
You can't refute a misinformed case and build a solid one of your own in seven minutes. It's the nature of debate, and Craig uses it to his advantage.
"I didn't read him as philosophy dressed up as science, though..."
Anything dealing with "what happened before time?" or "why are things the way they are and not some way else?" is automatically more philosophy than science. He tries to make it sound as though "we know" more that we do (because, honestly, we know nothing, and won't, and can't).
"I had read that he's a creationist, though, which is unfortunate."
Yeah. I see it as; if the "right" philosophy leads one to the wrong answer, when how does that reflect on the philosophy?
Don't get me wrong. Craig is an excellent debater. That does not mean that he's right (lots his points are broken down piecemeal on various websites); he's just stating things with far more surety than is justified, and framing it so that his opponents has to refute his "is" with "maybe". It's a dirty trick, but effective.
Hitchens' book is just an appeal to authority used to criticize a different appeal to a different authority. Contributes nothing new to the conversation.
whoknew "Hitchens' book is just an appeal to authority used to criticize a different appeal to a different authority."
Actually, it's a book-length diatribe refuting the theist school of "religion makes people better"-slash-"religion is the only guide to morality"-slash-"without religion, you can't be moral"-slash-"without God, chaos reigns", etc, complete with examples. His book isn't "I think these people are bad, therefore they are bad" so much as "Look at what these people do, therefore these people are bad" ("...know them by their fruits", to purloin a phrase far older than I am. One which, sadly, is consistently ignored when it leads to conclusions that people don't like. The "mote/beam" one is good, too).
Essentially, when the good of religion is brought up, it's a counterweight of "Yes, but it also gives the idiocy of idiots, hate of haters and ignorance of the ignorant a weight which is not deserved". Some religious people stood up to the Nazis at the expense of their own lives, for instance, while others helped them (even after the War). It's also a flip to the "Look at how bad Hitler was!" (where he's posited to be an atheist, rather than a crazy mess), as his "plan for the Jews" was the same as Luther's. One man's good true believer is another's Torquemada. If religion was an ace in the hole to making people good, Jerry Falwell wouldn't have been an asshole. Good people are good people with or without religion, but bad people get an undeserved boost when they mistake their inner asshole for the Holy Spirit (generally followed by that passage from Leviticus about "the gays" and what to do with them).
A bad atheist is called an ass, and is rightly not held up as a paragon of virtue. A bad Baptist is called "minister" and gets the ear of the President.
Granted, it's been awhile since I read it. Not enough pictures, if memory serves.
Oh, and...
Brainspore "The neo-atheist movement could use some more charismatic spokespeople."
We (and as usual I speak for all atheists) are in the process of cloning Randi. I don't know if you've heard, but he's Amazing.
Conveniently, he's also pocket-sized.
MO, brilliant stuff!
Foetusnail: Thank you. There aren't enough jokes relating to Randi and his (frankly adorable) tininess, I think.
Modus - I agree with many of Craig's philosophical ideas, such as the inability of atheism to posit purpose or value system (I would be interested in the "piecemeal" sites you mentioned). However, I most certainly do not agree that his philosophy leads to his creationist conclusions. I think the only link there is that they are often "fellow travelers;" a belief in purpose can easily accomodate evolution, or vice versa.
And not to defend Falwell, but we have no way of knowing whether he might have been an even bigger asshole (or more powerful) had he not been religious. And as a Christian, I actually do think that all the New Atheists* are paragons of ass-itude rather than virtue, and have rather more ears opened to them than they should. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
* Maybe not Dennett.
@ Modusoperandi #105:
Randi is brilliant and entertaining but can sometimes be a little condescending toward non-believers too. Maybe it's the inevitable result of facing off against so many frauds and loons?
It's hard for someone who never held any supernatural beliefs to put themselves in the mindset of someone who has them. If you were raised with the belief in an afterlife, letting go of God (or gods) doesn't just mean accepting that the universe is governed by laws of science. It means that everyone you've ever lost (or will ever lose) stays gone forever. It's like the difference between seeing a family member off on a business trip and seeing them move away never to return.
Atheists usually win these debates because they've got the science on their side, but theists will win the converts as long as they have the compassion (well, for straight people anyway).
roach "Modus - I agree with many of Craig's philosophical ideas, such as the inability of atheism to posit purpose..."
Absolute, transcendent purpose, probably. With no 3O'd God, there's no guidance from same. With one made by Man, it's just someone else's relative morality given power that it hasn't earned (kill any Canaanites lately? That was someone's God-given purpose. Thank God it wasn't mine. I get all squeamish at the site of blood).
"...or value system"
Well, try desire utilitarianism.
Without God, moral philosophy gets messy. With God, incidentally, ditto (sure, slavery is wrong...now).
"(I would be interested in the "piecemeal" sites you mentioned)"
You don't need to search specifically for him, just his arguments. He's still using the big four (Kalaam Cosmological, Teleological, Transcendental & Morality), and I even saw him bring out the Ontological once (I call it "The Argument from Imagination. I'm cheeky like that). infidels.org has a bunch of essays on his arguments and his books. The Evaluatingchristianity blog has advice for debating WLC.
A search any deeper than that would require a firm Googling (the examples above were all off the top of my head, which is where I store my stuff. It keeps the squirrels the hell away from my nuts).
If you want to read some terrifying bafflegab, try WLC on the OT's attempted genocide in Canaan. For all his arguing about absolute morality, it appears that it really just boils down to "Obey", making unchanging, absolute morality "whatever God tells you to do at the moment".
"And not to defend Falwell, but we have no way of knowing whether he might have been an even bigger asshole (or more powerful) had he not been religious."
Possibly. Would anyone have listened to him? Would his mad rants have been tax-exempt? Would anyone have confused his opinions for that of God? Would Liberty University actually have to educate? Look for answers to these questions and more, on the next episode of Soap.
"And as a Christian, I actually do think that all the New Atheists* are paragons of ass-itude rather than virtue, and have rather more ears opened to them than they should."
Dawkins can be a little strident, yes, but Harris? Harris is practically a stoner.
...and no matter what the "new atheists" say, someone will be offended. That's the nature of Man. No matter how you phrase it, saying that the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old or that a literal, worldwide flood didn't happen or that Man descended from not-Man (to pick common elements from just one religion) is attacking someone's dearly held belief. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that they do not have the right to not be offended.
Brainspore "Randi is brilliant and entertaining but can sometimes be a little condescending toward non-believers too."
Sometimes a little condescension is justified. Sometimes, as in off-the cuff conversations such as this one, it's unavoidable, poopyhead.
"It's hard for someone who never held any supernatural beliefs to put themselves in the mindset of someone who has them."
How about Shermer, then?
"It means that everyone you've ever lost (or will ever lose) stays gone forever."
Which is worse, non-existence or an eternity of firey burning in Hell?
In any event, grandma isn't gone. She's still in your head, and the parts that made up grandma forming something else's life (it's happening right now to you, in fact. The parts you started out with are not the ones you have now). It's not much, but an unfortunate reality is better than a perfect fantasy (albeit one where grandma's eternal soul may or may not have ended up in Hell).
Not to demean the concept of God, but did losing Santa break you? Perpetual infancy sounds nice, but has nasty side-effects when it causes 40,000,000 Americans to both think that the universe is 6,000 years old and Jesus will return, if not this year, then in our lifetime (not to mention the people who think that God prefers prayer to medicine or, under another version of God that they'll get an oodle of virgins if they become a grenade or that mass arson, murder and mayhem are justified if they read the comics section of a Dutch newspaper, or...or...or...).
Modus, I did mean absolute purpose, yes. The other kinds don't really carry any weight with me, since they set up a separate and ungrounded purpose for each individual human being, liable to change at any moment for any reason. I haven't killed any Canaanites lately, no, but then I think that there is a difference between absolute principles, which will necessarily applied differently in different situations, and complete relativism. Nor do I think that God speaks to me directly, or that one must read the Bible literally (or that literal readings, of anything, can exist), including the idea that Yahweh had direct discussions with the Patriarchs. In any case, if it's relativism with or without God, it wipes out all distinctions. Power still exists, but power is value-neutral (in any system, really). It's about how you use power, and the problem with Falwell or anyone is not that he has power; it's that he uses it incorrectly. If your point is only that excessive power in anyone's hands is dangerous, and the perceived authority of God grants that ability, then sure; but so do presidency, tenure, and a lot of other high positions, which are likewise tenuously founded. Then again, I think Christians are called by their very scriptures to be dubious of those who claim to speak with God's authority.
As to Falwell, I think all of what you mentioned could be true - but I think the real consideration there is why a large segment of America has decided it needs to divorce itself from society (own education, own media, etc). The comparative triumph of the progressive in this country (which I view in parts positively, in parts negatively, but they view all negatively) has left them feeling, justified or not, completely disenfranchised. The New Atheists only make it worse, incidentally, with their condescension.
As for Harris, I find him to be the most strident of all (or did; he seems largely forgotten after Hitchens came on the scene). I'm not sure about the stoner thing - is that because he does quasi-Buddhist meditation? In any case, he too has said that people with extremely incorrect beliefs can be killed. This combined with Hitchens specifically and the more general air of superiority convinces me that all the New Atheist talk that religion is the one with the legacy of murder is true only because atheism does not yet have the popularity that those religions have had in the past, and thus can so far only exert academic and intellectual power - much like, say, St. Paul at the start of Christianity. One man's immoral heathen is another man's unintelligent (unBright?) theist.
I'll check out the sites you mentioned (though I doubt I'll return here to comment). Thanks. The atheistethicist link was broken, so I got to the site but wasn't sure if there was a particular post.
was looking for a synthesis to organize my thoughts and stumbled on a promising table of contents
http://www.thereligionvirus.com/sample_chapters/contents.php
Roach "I'll check out the sites you mentioned (though I doubt I'll return here to comment)."
Yeah, take that, Boingboing!
Just in the interest of not dragging this out way past the original post's date, Modus. If this were a regular forum I'd certainly do it - or if you really wanted me to. But actual dialogue in comboxes is hard to keep up past a few days, at the most.
Okay. You'll be better conversations on moral philosophy elsewhere, anyway, as they specialize in such nonsense (that atheistethicist one wasn't any particular post, because that's what the whole site is about).
Boingboing specializes in generalized nonsense, occasionally followed by a unicorn. True story.
If you're educating me on what BoingBoing is, I've been reading the site religiously* for at least five years now.
I did read through a lot of the Evaluating Christianity blog, and found it quite pleasant. The author was intelligent, honest and compassionate. On the other hand, none of his arguments really bothered me because they seem to be oriented primarily toward evangelical Christianity, and I'm a Catholic who thinks that most of the theological problems with Christianity, like Biblical literalism and creationism, are errors of the Reformation. I like (and agree) with his idea that Strobel and other Christians telling lies should be denounced by Christians themselves. Bad Christians are the greatest enemies of Christianity, not atheists.
* That is, twice a year - Christmas and Easter. Har har.
Roach "On the other hand, none of his arguments really bothered me because they seem to be oriented primarily toward evangelical Christianity..."
Well, they talk about what they know. Most ex-Christians in the USA seem to be post-Protestant, as the Charismatic/Evengelical/Conservative/Literalist stripe runs thick across a great swath of the US.
"...and I'm a Catholic..."
Ah ha! So you have your whole own set of problems, heretic! Protestantism has the problem that when everyone reads and interprets the Bible themselves (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, apparently), lots of people end up with different answers (thanks a lot, Holy Spirit!). Catholicism has its own faults. Amusingly, they're best illustrated in pro-Protestant/anti-Catholic apologetics...I'll leave it up to you to swim in those zealous shark infested waters. I, meanwhile, think that you're all nuts. Don't take it personally. I'm a bit nutty myself.
"...who thinks that most of the theological problems with Christianity, like Biblical literalism and creationism, are errors of the Reformation."
Try The Enlightenment, believe it or not. (Note: believe it).
...
Apropo of nothing, Bad Christian was an awesome movie. Harvey Keitel should've got the Oscar for his portrayal of Bad Jesus.
all christians should go live in a country that isn't for a couple of years. Then they can try explaining their faith in light of the plain fact of whole societies that don't know about jesus, don't care about jesus, have never even heard of jesus and are still quite happy, complete and fulfilled. And populated by people who have every virtue without benefit of jesus.
Oooh! I know this one! They still have the virtues with the benefit of Jesus; he's just working behind the scenes! Or perhaps under an assumed name. Like with a fake mustache and plastic thick-rimmed glasses.
@Modus - Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, same thing in my book. The ideological excesses of one are the mirror image of the excesses of the other. They're both basically nominalist, but since that's usually a psychologically insupportable way to live one's life, all sorts of issues develop.
I just watched Bad Lieutenant for the first time yesterday, weirdly enough. I found it to be almost completely without merit, and have given up on Abel Ferrara as a director. But I can't wait for Herzog's non-remake remake.
nope, you only think it's false nose jesus, in fact I'M the REAL jesus and I control false nose jesus.
But I'm mysterious.
Roach "The ideological excesses of one are the mirror image of the excesses of the other."
Still, I'm keeping them. Yes, I'll feed them and walk them everyday and comb their fur. Sheesh.
"They're both basically nominalist, but since that's usually a psychologically insupportable way to live one's life, all sorts of issues develop."
Kind of like trying to reconcile the God of the Tanakh and the one of the Gospels?
"I just watched Bad Lieutenant for the first time yesterday, weirdly enough."
I, meanwhile, have never seen it. Nor do I plan to. The TV reception here in my secret island lair is abysmal anyway.
If you actually have some ability at literary or historical analysis it's really not that hard. Or if you view religion as actual practice rather than a cold set of rules.
"Or if you view religion as actual practice rather than a cold set of rules."
A little tribal god (two if you count Elohim, the well-meaning but absent-minded, big picture kind of god who is terrible with people, and Yahweh, the wildly inconsistent and occasionally stabby, details-oriented kind of god who is also terrible with people), thuggishly thugging its mitzvah-filled way across a tiny patch of a not-particularly good area of land, pushing out the nefarious, demonized "them"
...time passes...
Sermon on the Mount/only two commandments/Great Commission
I don't know how much practice it takes to reconcile those two things, but that's time you could've used to learn how to play the cello. What's more important, eternal salvation or soothing cello music?
...
I am terribly cheeky, aren't I? Seriously, my mug says "#1 Chee", 'cause I didn't have enough paint to make the whole word. I'm cheeky and cheap. I also have terrible taste in mug text. It's genetic, as I understand it. Pop had a "#1 Fath" mug. He loved that poor mug. *sniff*
Y'know, in all that time it took to pat yourself on the back, you could have ordered a cello online.
I'm two steps ahead of you. I've already got Cello Online. My character is named Yoy0Mah2449.
Look, I know you've probably lost interest in this, and I thought I had as well, but you did say two things in the most recent posts that seemed to be coming from a desire for your own tribe's dominance rather than a desire for truth, and hence bugged me. I still appreciate the earlier linkage; the Debating Christianity and Atheist Ethicist blog support what I have always said - that there are plenty of moral and intellectually sound atheists, interested in real dialogue, who unfortunately have the spotlight taken away by Dawkins and Hitchens. (See Christians/Falwell.)
The first is your mocking of literary and historical analysis when applied to the Bible, and your imputation that I wasted my time in learning them. Well, since I spent years learning literary analysis for its primary object - analyzing literature - this is something like creationists saying that all that biology was useless because it makes you assert evolution, when there is considerably more to the study. Likewise, the imputation is annoying when it is the study that leads one to the truth, rather than assuming the truth (or, in your case, the falseness) and working from there.
The second is your concept of reconciling which, it seems to me, is again the equivalent of a Biblical literalist's. It seems that you will accept nothing less as reconciliation other than both say the exact same thing in the exact words and no more or less, when it is quite clear that Jesus himself believes he is bringing something new - "Moses said X, but I say to you X." Yet when one applies the dual techniques I mentioned above, at least some apparent contradictions (and really this isn't even that) vanish. Take, for example, your idea that Only Two Commandments is a contradiction. I assume you mean "Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself." Leaving aside the fact that this is generally considered "the greatest" rather than "the only" commandments, it comes directly out of the Tanakh, namely multiple places in Leviticus. Not only that, but Jews themselves would have no problem with there being, really, only One Commandment - one of their greatest leaders, the rabbi Hillel, said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." Since he said it not long before Jesus' birth, one could even say that Jesus got it from him - or in a Christian view of history, that this, like Platonism, was a preparation for the (entirely historical, whether you believe it happened or not) coming of Jesus. But the idea that the Golden Rule is somehow irreconcilable with the Old Testament is something I've never heard before.
This is what I mean by analysis. Sure, you can read the whole Bible literally. You can also read Dante or Joyce literally. It'll get you into bad places, so maybe it's best not to learn that cello after all - at least if you want to talk about such things.
Given the alternative (god forbid), Christopher Hitchens does have the right (i.e., should be tolerated) of being an English snob if he so desires. It's a free press, isn't it?
Meanwhile, I hope his arguments (nothing new, really) will some day 'sink in' with the moderates and undecided of this world, because therein lies our only hope.
Given time (unless the parties of god cut it short), who knows... this poor and god-forsaken planet might even get another chance at making it right.
We started out with many many gods. We are now down to one or two. It's a matter of time. Thanks Hitch.
"...but you did say two things in the most recent posts that seemed to be coming from a desire for your own tribe's dominance rather than a desire for truth, and hence bugged me."
The only signs I've seen of any of the posited interventionalist gods are the numerous incompatible anecdotes of the various gods various followers and the propaganda from their various incompatible books. Multiple anecdotes is not data. As such, in spite of apologia's focus on why a god that's supposed to interact doesn't, and why its noninteraction is really interaction, and why the other people (and their other gods) are wrong while their own equally flimsy excuses are solid, the null hypothesis is justified. That doesn't mean that I'm right (most of the competent arguments for the existence of god work for deism as well, and deism doesn't fall down on the whole "interacting now" thing), but it means that I'm unlikely to be wrong. I am open (or try to be) to evidence, and will change my mind if it's justified...even if I don't like a proven God or gods, I will believe in them. Worship is another matter...
"that there are plenty of moral and intellectually sound atheists, interested in real dialogue, who unfortunately have the spotlight taken away by Dawkins..."
Dawkins is just fine, as long as he sticks to biology. As a zoologist he makes a shitty philosopher. The only reason that he's "out" is because biology is, by far, the group of sciences most picked on by people who think that the world is far younger than it actually is.
"...and Hitchens."
The curmudgeon has his place. The thing that saddens me about him is that he could be sooo much more if he only bothered to learn more than quips, wit and emotion-lade rhetoric.
"The first is your mocking of literary and historical analysis when applied to the Bible, and your imputation that I wasted my time in learning them."
Spending time trying to reconcile, at best, quasi-fiction with itself is a waste of time. As a book, it's interesting to read how other people thought (desert tribes are big on obedience, it seems). Learning about the Sinai of 1446BC by reading Exodus won't teach you much, if anything, about the Sinai 1446BC. Where it makes truth claims, it fails. JC is purported to have said "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.". Well, I've heard Moses and the prophets (an awesome band, by the way) and lots of what they said is bunk.
"Likewise, the imputation is annoying when it is the study that leads one to the truth..."
The truth that a bunch of God's Word is demonstratably false, most of it is far from great literature, the good sayings of JC aren't original and the original ones aren't good (unless, of course, the End was Nigh...which it wasn't)?
"The second is your concept of reconciling which, it seems to me, is again the equivalent of a Biblical literalist's...But the idea that the Golden Rule is somehow irreconcilable with the Old Testament is something I've never heard before."
I'm not expecting both to say and do the exact same things (though some consistency would be nice). The Golden Rule is not irreconcilable with Tanakh. The problem is that the God of both books is two different gods. "Be nice to each other. Also, go kill those guys." is not the Golden Rule; it's incoherent (and, no, "they were all bad" does not cut it). Did you ever wonder why fundamentalists consistently fall to quoting OT passages to buttress a point and why that point sounds so at odds with what a loving God (much less a 3O'd one) is supposed to be?
"Sure, you can read the whole Bible literally."
I tend to (especially Solomon, Song of. That book is sizzlin' hot!). As presented, it's God's Word. It's not my fault that He presenting things differently than they occurred. Me taking a book literally is not the problem; believers taking it literally is. I don't bring my nasty atheism (sometimes agnosticism and occasion deism) into their churches, I would appreciate if they kept Genesis out of science class. Sadly, my non-interference is consistently not reciprocated.
It's funny that you mentioned believing and not worshipping. I've often considered myself what would happen if I no longer believed, and I think I would still worship. Believing and not worshipping seems incoherent to me, though.
If you think that "the Golden Rule is not irreconcilable with Tanakh" you should not have said so. I should say that, contra "Spending time trying to reconcile, at best, quasi-fiction with itself is a waste of time" that my point is that I did not spend time trying to reconcile anything; when I approached the book to attempt understanding, with the tools of literary analysis at my call, I could read it as it was, a book by multiple authors (whether inspired by God or not) which needed reconciling no more than multiple authors in the Romantic tradition. This doesn't mean that I'm claiming I understand the entire Bible, but my difficulties don't come from some need for reconciliation. To strip down your argument here, all you really said is "Your way didn't lead to my answer so it must be wrong." That's not an argument about my process, it's just an assertion. To be clear, I understand that mine was just an assertion too - but I intended it to be such, not as some sort of argumentative triumph. It is a general thing I've noticed, that the common New Atheist approach to religion/the Bible destroys not only any attempt at understanding religion, but in fact destroys the understanding of everything (literature, art, history, philosophy) that is not hard science. Not surprising, since that is where it roots its axiomatic principles.
Here's a (hopefully) clear point that may help with the majority of your problems with the Old/New Testament - one is the revelation of the old covenant, the other is the new one. The new one builds on the old one. Jesus brings a New Covenant whose main feature is the expansion to the entire world of the Old Covenant, which was a covenant solely for the Jews. As such, it is nationalistic, and things like "Also, go kill those guys." fit into that nationalism - since it's not just "go kill these guys" but "make and defend a nation for yourself." The Covenant is an attempt at preserving and encouraging a development of God's law, at least one feature of which, the forbidding of human sacrifice, is fairly unique (and thus I get really steamed when Harris includes Hebrews on his list of such cultures every time). Other cultures were not accepting of God's Law, as signified by the perpetual attacks on Israel. This is why I say the Bible needs to be read according to historical analysis, in the Herodotean sense - the New Covenant is the future, the development, of the Old. Jesus makes the change from "Don't abuse each other" to "Don't abuse anyone" at a time when it can be accepted - and indeed it spreads like wildfire. Would such a command really have been accepted in 1446 BC? Most people don't even accept it now. The thing is, your whole argument about their being those differences is in error because those differences ARE THE MEANING OF the book! If the Old Testament was all that was needed for the world, Jesus would never have had to come in the first place. OF COURSE when he comes he is going to have to add, to expand, to explain. Your argument eats itself. I've no problem with your belief that it's all bullshit - that's totally fine, and I have that opinion about a great many things myself. A claim of inconsistency's a different matter.
You keep falling back on "fundamentalists do bad things!" and "fundamentalists use the Bible badly!" I agree. In fact, if you remember, it was the starting place of all my arguments in this thread. But you're a fundamentalist too, only an atheist one, and your arguments are all just the reverse of theirs, meaning they just don't affect me or the large swath of Christianity I represent, and your arguments to force me onto your grounds, rather than argue from mine, really aren't working. The fact that you take the Bible literally AND DISBELIEVE IT is why it's not a problem for you, in the sense that you don't obey literally the things that you shouldn't. However, I would likely think that there are a number of things from the Bible that it would be better if you did do, even taking them literally. If there are any books that you do take literally and believe, you will have serious problems similar to the fundies'. And if you don't, then why would you take theirs literally?
Of course, it is actually impossible to take a book literally, a point I think I made earlier but didn't spend much time on. All texts require interpretation. Some may be, in a sense, easier than others (a technical manual) and others harder (Dante or Plato), and I would suggest that the Bible is one of the more difficult ones, as a giant mix of authors, styles and time periods. Certainly God's Word means the truth, but truth comes in forms other than empirical. You even mention the Song of Solomon, even though it's obviously an entirely metaphorical book, like Job, Revelations, etc. I assume that was a jest, but if it's so, then your entire argument is a joke. Your need to take the Bible literally is the same need, just the flip side, of fundies - in their case, it allows them to see the world (specifically the cultural forces arrayed against them) as wrong, and yours allows you to see the Bible (as it represents the cultural forces arrayed against you) as wrong. Most New Atheists seem to like science because it is clear, empirical, falsifiable; then, like Dawkins, they go outside, and find themselves out of their element, swimming in a sea with other real human beings, and they react with hostility and retreat to the tools that served them back on land with now inferior results.
As for your non-interference, I agree (as a teacher myself) that keeping Genesis out of science class is a good thing (beside the obvious 1st Amendment problems, treating the Bible as a science text when it clearly is not does disservice to science as well as to the Bible itself). However, atheist non-interference is not a given, much as I thank you for yours. I had 0 professors push any religion on me at either of my colleges, one of which was religious, and multiple professors push atheism (one even taught Dawkins as a way of 'explaining' Victorian literature). Non-interference is an impossibility, because our beliefs underlie our actions, and ideas have consequences. Schools serve as transmitters of ideas and beliefs as well as facts, by their very nature. Additionally, most attempts at forced secularism wind up approaching enforced atheism. What we should strive for is compassion and mutual understanding. Dialogue is a good thing.
Roach "I've often considered myself what would happen if I no longer believed, and I think I would still worship."
I've known people who didn't really believe, but when to church anyway, because that was their social circle. It's got a built-in support network that atheism lacks (our meetings suck. You know it's not going to go well when the secular padre stands up in front of the crowd and opens with "You are going to die." and closes with a shrug. Plus, our buffet selection is poor. Too much jell-o salad. Blech!).
"If you think that "the Golden Rule is not irreconcilable with Tanakh" you should not have said so."
And if you think that the Old Covenant, with a little people in a little patch of not particularly good soil and their little god and the "Never mind, I really meant 'everyone'. Sorry about the confusion. I'll get Paul to sort it out later" and an actual 3O'd, all loving, all benevolent God are all the same thing...
Am I judging God? Obviously. Their god looks like one that people would make up. Too small, too jealous, too petty, too poor with people, too favouritist. An actual 3O'd god would be able and willing to chat with each and every person all the time, like an actual loving father writ large, rather than pick one every once in a while and get him to spread the word. In the very least, it would save people from accidentally mistaking their own made up gods for the true one (the problem with everybody else's Revelation is that it's wrong).
"To strip down your argument here, all you really said is 'Your way didn't lead to my answer so it must be wrong.'"
I see it more as "That book, much like the other books which others believe but you don't, reflects Man more than it does God." Your argument works just as well for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible (seriously, have you read any of the really good Mormon apologists? According to them you're right but a little bit off, and they're right and right on. Muslims, too. I assume that Hindus are in the same boat, but they just incorporate yours into their. I wonder how many arms their Jesus has...).
Read properly, they're all true, which is problematic, as they're incompatible.
"That's not an argument about my process, it's just an assertion."
Is there God? That's the only real question. I would say, no, unless it's the deist Creaton, in which case I would shrug.
"It is a general thing I've noticed, that the common New Atheist approach to religion/the Bible destroys not only any attempt at understanding religion..."
There are a few secular authors writing about religion. Probably not in the manner you're expecting, but the "how religions start, fuel themselves and propagate" is being investigated (and has been since sometime in between when they stopped burning people for asking questions and Twain's pithy commentary on religion).
"..but in fact destroys the understanding of everything (literature, art, history, philosophy) that is not hard science."
I would say, no. They do distinguish between science and philosophy, even if they aren't good at finding the border between them. Science is the single best way we have of understanding how things work and learning about what really happened in the past, but it's poor at figuring out what we should do (at best, it illuminates why we are what we are and how we came to be). The best path to that is moral philosophy, not religion (and once you move from the empirically verifiable the path gets messy. Human, as it were. Adding the supernatural just obscures the mess further, while pretending to add clarity).
Religion is based on an obsolete model of the universe. It's the science before science (the "is") and the philosophy before philosophy (the "ought). Problematically, it claims a source other than its actual source, which gives it a weight which it does not deserve.
"Not surprising, since that is where it roots its axiomatic principles."
Only because they (us, actually) are up against a group for whom where the real world conflicts with Holy Book X, it's the real world that's wrong. If crass biblical literalism wasn't so popular...most of the push back is because of the push the other way.
"Here's a (hopefully) clear point that may help with the majority of your problems with the Old/New Testament - one is the revelation of the old covenant, the other is the new one."
Here's a clearer one. One is a tribal god, supporting that tribe against its neighbours starting in an era of virtually constant low-level warfare, no different than any of the other tribes and their gods. The latter is a view of god from a the eyes of an apocalyptic preacher who had some good ideas (and some that make more sense if the the End is Nigh, steeped in the lore of his surrounding...followed, of course, by no apocalypse. Instead, he got Paul, who brought his own view into the mix).
"...since it's not just 'go kill these guys' but 'make and defend a nation for yourself.'"
"...and take it from those guys. Did I mention that it's really yours? Yup, you used to live here before those nasty Egyptians enslaved you. Sure, there's no evidence that they did so, and eventually people will find that there's pretty good evidence against it, but you should stick with what I say. Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
"Other cultures were not accepting of God's Law, as signified by the perpetual attacks on Israel."
As "signified", sure. As "actually", being a little people on the crossroads of empires will inevitably result in the big boys crossing your territory every now and then, and partly being in part of the Fertile Cresent means that everybody else wants what you've got (and you them) as well. No gods required. Or necessary. They seem to get in the way a lot, actually. You'd think they'd sort it out amongst themselves, then tell us what their decision was, but nooo. Jerks.
"Jesus makes the change from "Don't abuse each other" to "Don't abuse anyone" at a time when it can be accepted - and indeed it spreads like wildfire."
I would say that the message proved popular because of, for most of its early adherents, the Beatitudes. "Sure, this world sucks, but the next one will be much better." is a powerful lure for someone trapped under someone else's heel.
"Would such a command really have been accepted in 1446 BC?"
The question is, how incompetent does a 3O'd god have to be to make it fit the history of the universe? On the one hand, it can design and build a total of one entire everything, yet on the other it can't design the things that populate it all that well, and it can't plan for the contingencies of its own poor planning, necessitating popping in every once in a while to mess with reality, and (knowing that "bad trees bear bad fruit" it sends a Deluge, sparing only some of the bad trees...which continue to produce more bad fruit), and it eventually figures out that the only way it's going to get an ending similar to the one it wants is to offer its favourite creation a way around its own rules that it came up with itself.
The null hypothesis fits the universe better than any one involving an interventionalist god (more correctly, any supernatural explanation fits any possible universe better than any reality-centric theory).
"If the Old Testament was all that was needed for the world, Jesus would never have had to come in the first place."
Except that the Torah has a bunch of things that did not happen. No Eden. No Adam. No Fall. No Flood. (And no Babel & no Exodus. At least the NT tries to keep its wrong details small). Jesus came for a fiction, to save Man from the consequences of fiction, thinking that He was the creator of it.
"I've no problem with your belief that it's all bullshit - that's totally fine, and I have that opinion about a great many things myself."
It's not all bullshit. Some of it, to some degree, probably happened.
"You keep falling back on 'fundamentalists do bad things!' and 'fundamentalists use the Bible badly!' I agree."
That's the only version of God that we, and I speak for all atheists, care about. Without the Christian Right, without militant Islam, without the lunacy of the Catholic church in the the third world countries where it still has power, we could go back to being apatheists.
"But you're a fundamentalist too, only an atheist one..."
If reality-centered makes me a fundamentalist, then sign me up.
"...and your arguments are all just the reverse of theirs, meaning they just don't affect me or the large swath of Christianity I represent..."
Obviously. No argument affects all people of religion.
"...and your arguments to force me onto your grounds, rather than argue from mine, really aren't working..."
I'd say that the lack of an interventionalist god is pretty good grounds for disbelief in an interventionalist god.
"However, I would likely think that there are a number of things from the Bible that it would be better if you did do, even taking them literally."
The good bits aren't original and the original bits aren't good. The supernatural bits are bunk and, of the remainder, lots of it is more appropriate to a desert tribe in times past, part of it is more appropriate if the end is coming, part of it is comforting (and handy for keeping the plebes under control), and the remainder is good because it reflects the best of common human experience. Still, I'd rather read Huck Finn.
"All texts require interpretation."
And all readers, suitably filled by the Holy Spirit, come up with the correct interpretation (even when their's is different than someone else's). Of course, you're a Catholic, so that mostly Protestant view isn't your Christianity. Instead, yours relies on other people's interpretations, which are also the right ones, and everybody else is doing it wrong.
"As for your non-interference, I agree (as a teacher myself) that keeping Genesis out of science class is a good thing (beside the obvious 1st Amendment problems, treating the Bible as a science text when it clearly is not does disservice to science as well as to the Bible itself)."
Unfortunately, your word with "them" carries just slightly more weight than mine (I mean, to "them" you believe the wrong thing, but you at least believe something). If it was a game of Protestant poker, a hand of "papist" would beat one of "atheist", but both would lose to one of "Calvinist".
"I had...multiple professors push atheism (one even taught Dawkins as a way of 'explaining' Victorian literature)."
Blech. Nothing kills the joy of learning like a shitty teacher. They should have some sort of Thunderdome for them, so that we only get taught by the best. Dawkins is a good populariser of science, but as a zoologist he's a terrible philosopher. One of these days I really should read The Ancestor's Tale. It's in my pile of bought but not-yet-read books. It's this thick! If it was toilet reading, you'd be in the bathroom forever! I shit you not!
"Non-interference is an impossibility, because our beliefs underlie our actions, and ideas have consequences."
Realize, too, that any class would doesn't explicitely credit, thank and praise God for everything is atheism to a lot of people (including, say Dinesh D'Souza, who is well-read enough that he really should know better. Luckily, he's a Catholic, so that doesn't effect you...oh...I guess that the monolithic RC church is less homogeneous than the presented facade implies).
"Additionally, most attempts at forced secularism wind up approaching enforced atheism."
If none-above-any-other/slash/evidence and reason-based governance is interpreted as atheism, there's not a whole lot I can do about that.
"What we should strive for is compassion and mutual understanding."
Okay, you get the Pope to stop killing Africans with kindness and to stop excommunicating 9 year old rape victims for getting abortions and, and I'll try to get Dawkins to read some books on normative ethics.
"Dialogue is a good thing."
Our commonalities bring us together, while our differences keep things interesting.
You speak for all atheists now? Sweet. I only speak for one Catholic, me. We're not very monolithic, y'know.
I'll only take issue with two things, since I'm going to bow out politely at this point -
"Okay, you get the Pope to stop killing Africans with kindness..."
The West funneled millions of condoms into Africa for decades, both in places where the Pope supposedly has traction in such matters and places where he certainly doesn't. AIDS rampages out of control in both. So which is really more harmful, since you're a fan of reality-based reasoning - the Pope's rejection of condoms for single-partner sex, or the other side's blindness to any sort of solution beyond condoms? I'm personally for the ABC method, as I think condoms, unlike abortion, come under the umbrella of free choice. But if the Pope really had the traction that you and the thousands of talking heads I've seen advance the "no condoms = genocide" argument, then one would assume that more people would only be having sex with their spouses, which would destroy the AIDS pandemic utterly. But something (reality) tells me that the Pope's not the root of the problem. Nor is Dawkins reading some normative ethics going to be enough - to be as rhetorically one-sided as you just were (which I have mostly tried to avoid in this discussion), atheists could stop trying to establish complete moral relativism and trying to destroy all disciplines not based on pure, nihilistic, value-free power. I'd rather not live in the Brave Old World that results.
Secondly, you almost completely shifted your premise from "inconsistent" to "I don't like this God of yours." If I were Craig, I could claim victory!
Also, though D'Souza is not part of the Catholic hierarchy to which I owe obedience, he does make a good point - as long as evolution is preached as atheist, it shouldn't be allowed in classrooms by the Constitution. The argument's only as silly as evolution mandating atheism, though, and I'm in agreement with neither. Or, if this was your point, I'm well aware there are Catholic creationists - Behe, for example. But he doesn't AFFECT me either (sorry, pet peeve), and Catholics aren't required to be creationists (or not to be). D'Souza's problem, as with a lot of other Catholics in the public eye, is that he's really more interested in conservative/liberal than anything religious, and his argument there results from political, rather than religious, convictions.
"You speak for all atheists now? Sweet."
I know, right?!
"We're not very monolithic, y'know."
You do have an earthly leader, though. Wears a silly hat. Is infallible on occasion. Has an odd car.
"So which is really more harmful, since you're a fan of reality-based reasoning - the Pope's rejection of condoms for single-partner sex, or the other side's blindness to any sort of solution beyond condoms?"
Nice false dichotomy. The best solution is everything that helps (comprehensive sex-ed + birth control/protection + societal engineering works better than nothing + guilt. Jesus can't save you from your moist, burning loins). No birth control/prophylactics works about as well as abstinence-only sex-ed. Absolutism doesn't work for people because people are not absolutes. Of course, I could be wrong.
"...atheists could stop trying to establish complete moral relativism and trying to destroy all disciplines not based on pure, nihilistic, value-free power."
Wow. I don't know whether to be amused or insulted. Ideally, morality should be determined through reason (though practically, it's obscured by multiple factors, most of which are not bad, merely inconsistent, since their evolution was reinforced by environments in which we don't live anymore. In that sense, natural morality is much like our immune system).
Reason-based morality is distinctly not value-free. "We should, because..."
The moral end is determined by multiple factors, which is why different cultures have different moral setups (it's why Japan, with lots of people packed into a little space ends up different than Afghanistan, with smaller groups scattered over rugged, mostly arid land end up nutty in different ways). That's not moral relativism, that's cultural relativism, and you're probably just as guilty of it as the rest of us (were Joshua's acts good or evil?).
"Secondly, you almost completely shifted your premise from "inconsistent" to "I don't like this God of yours.""
My original points still stand. I try not to repeat myself, and I'm not much good at this word...using...thingy. Just be glad that I make any sense at all.
"Also, though D'Souza is not part of the Catholic hierarchy to which I owe obedience, he does make a good point - as long as evolution is preached as atheist, it shouldn't be allowed in classrooms by the Constitution."
Except that it's not taught as atheist. It's taught as science. If some teachers are teaching it as explicitly atheist, then those teachers should be warned/fined/fired (much like any Creationist that tries to sneak in Genesis should be). D'Souza, as usual, is muddying the waters, leading his "in-group" to a faulty conclusion based on bad analysis.
"D'Souza's problem, as with a lot of other Catholics in the public eye, is that he's really more interested in conservative/liberal than anything religious and his argument there results from political, rather than religious, convictions."
Yes, but the two are linked, and his bibliography shows political, religious and mixed, reflecting that link. His hagiography of Falwell, for instance is both.
Y'know with both the D'Souza thing and the Pope thing you quoted the parts right before/after I said very similar things to what you said in your responses - ie my personal opinion, as opposed to the quoted parts which were noting the reverse fallacies to reflect on their extremes. It's like you're deliberately picking a fight...there seems to be no desire for any compromise ever in America these days.
Cultural relativism as determinism (as opposed to cultural influence, which I don't deny has an effect on me) leads directly to moral relativism once you realize a) that the moral ends in that system are just as determined by the culture as the moral means and b) culture can theoretically vary infinitely, meaning morality varies infinitely. Cultural determinism is also problematic because one can draw the "culture" as large or small as one wants, meaning there's no real difference between personal moral relativism and cultural moral relativism, on a philosophical level. Perhaps you're rooting a sort of natural moral law which obtains in all cultures, and those cultures merely must alter their means because of their circumstances, and I missed that. If that's so, however, I don't see how an scientific positivist system can posit a natural moral law what with the Is-Ought fallacy. You haven't really talked about any of this enough for me to respond to your personal beliefs, as opposed to the common understanding, but that's all I was doing in that line in any case. As I said last post, this was my attempt to be as biased as you were with those particular statements to which I was responding (I didn't know whether to be amused or insulted by the automatic, unconscious canards either). I don't assume that all atheists hold such a system - only that it's a common problem, and also a common bias.
In any case, I thought you made a number of good arguments throughout the discussion. My main issue is that, even if my religion is problematic in its reasons, yours gives me no encouragement in its effects, which I still see as nihilistic, creating only illusions of a moral order, free will, and purpose. It's Prometheus Bound writ large.
Roach "Y'know with both the D'Souza thing and the Pope thing you quoted the parts right before/after I said very similar things to what you said in your responses - ie my personal opinion, as opposed to the quoted parts which were noting the reverse fallacies to reflect on their extremes."
Years of debating with literalists has soured me. There's nothing like dialoguing with a YEC to ruin one's ability to converse. I try. I really do, but I don't think that I'm capable of arguing in good faith anymore. I'm sorry.
As for the "ABC method", as long as the "C" includes comprehensive sex-ed, I've no problem with it. The problem is that the official RC position seems to be the "AB method" which, much like the rhythm method, is a pretty good way to accidentally get pregnant (and spread disease).
"Perhaps you're rooting a sort of natural moral law which obtains in all cultures..."
The basics don't change. Groups that, say, promote random murder of one's family or neighbours simply wipe themselves out. "Don't be a dink" is common because it works. The main variables involve the size and make up of the in-group. For most of our history, the in-group was the tribe. Then, to village. To area. To nation. Etc.
"...and those cultures merely must alter their means because of their circumstances, and I missed that."
I thought I illustrated the basics of that with the Japan/Afghanistan examples.
"If that's so, however, I don't see how an scientific positivist system can posit a natural moral law what with the Is-Ought fallacy."
Isn't positivism pretty much dead? The scientific method is excellent at descriptive, but mediocre to terrible at normative. The "ought" of morality are bound in philosophy, which is messy, rather than the "is" of the hard sciences, which tends to be clearer, or the "is" of the soft sciences, which is muddier. I'm not advocating using the sciences to form "oughts" (I said earlier that it "...at best...illuminates why we are what we are and how we came to be"). Investigation shows what worked so far, not what should be.
"Ought" falls to reason, discussion, empathy, and a long history of successes and failures. Philosophy will always be messy. Absolutes are hard to find with Man, because Man is a mess. Pick up a copy of Kluge and an evo book like Making of the Fittest (or even Primates and Philosophers) to see just how disturbingly cobbled together we really are. Your brain alone is really a bunch of brains built on top of one another (which is partly why seeing someone that you haven't seen in years brings back some memories, but smelling an odour that you haven't smelled in years works on a whole different level) and it's split in two, making you practically two different minds (as illustrated by those who've had a corpus callosotomy or who have lost function on one side).
...but I've probably drifted, somewhat. I'm no philosopher. For one thing, smoking a pipe makes my eyes go all red. For another, I look terrible in a turtleneck.
"I didn't know whether to be amused or insulted by the automatic, unconscious canards either."
When in doubt, be amused. That's what I try to do. Still, few choose to pull my finger.
"My main issue is that, even if my religion is problematic in its reasons, yours gives me no encouragement in its effects, which I still see as nihilistic, creating only illusions of a moral order, free will, and purpose."
If we are it, then "higher" purpose is meaningless.
If we are it, then when we die, we're dead. If that's nihilism, then that's what it is. Depressing, probably, but the facts don't care how you feel about them. Disbelief in gravity won't save you from falling down the stairs.
Free will is an illusion. Luckily, the multiple programs running in your head are so complex, so intertwined and running on so many levels (most of which we aren't even aware of) that a deterministic mind in a deterministic universe (above the sub-atomic level at least) is still hard to predict on anything finer than mass psychology.
...
The pitch for atheism sucks. That said, it's one of a couple logic conclusions for the lack of an interventionalist god. With atheism (and, to an extent, deism) there's no need for mental gymnastics, no apologetics, no theodicy required to figure out why a God works with remarkably random distribution, with the only consistency based almost entirely on the dual pivots of geography and the religion that one was born into or, most of the time, why a God that can, doesn't.
I think positivism is very much alive; it just doesn't go by that name anymore, becoming scientism (when pejorative) or scientistic (when complimentary). Comte's "ages" may not be talked about much, but the basic belief system is alive in empiricism.
Otherwise, sounds good. Go and die in whatever way seems best to you, as Denethor said to Pippin.
I plan to go kicking and screaming.