|
Post by Cato on Sept 30, 2011 9:48:55 GMT
Los Leandros;
With respect, I think that those actions, by the Communists and Nazis, were inspired by their ideology, of which, in the case of communism, atheism was a consequence but not a cause of that ideology. Atheism has no normative content, so I really fail to see how it could ever inspire any action, for good or for bad nor could it prevent any action. If you believe otherwise then please identify what normative content it has and show how that content could lead to mass killings.
If I were to identify the feature of both communism and nazism that was truly dangerous I would identify 'utopianism' as being it.
Finally, many atheist are not communists or nazis and there is nothing in atheism that would logically necessitate an atheist to become either. Again, if you feel otherwise, then please show me the steps in your reasoning.
hibernicus;
Could you expand on what you mean by saying that most atheists "positively worship themselves in a Promethean or Faustian manner"?
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Sept 30, 2011 11:27:34 GMT
Cato. I understand the point you are seeking to make. Pure atheism as such is/should be neutral in an ideological/political sense. But I believe human beings are not like that, & it's impossible to apply perfect theories to explain human behaviour. I would argue that human beings are capable of good/evil, & need a moral/religious framework to help to avoid the latter. It obviously does'nt alway's work ; but if I may paraphrase, Evelyn Waugh, when a cynical journalist asked him why as a Catholic he was still so grumpy, he replied - " if I was'nt a Catholic, I'd be a lot worse ". It seems to me that history has proven that atheism as applied politically/ideologically/religiously, simply does'nt work. As a theory it's grand, but human being's will get in the way !.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 2, 2011 21:30:25 GMT
I did not say that most atheists did so - I don't know the exact proportions - but that a significant number appear to do so. I may be collapsing three separate/overlapping phenomena together: (1) Visceral dislike of the idea that there is any inherent order in the universe, on the grounds that if there were it would be a restriction on human freedom, particularly one's own. Jean-Paul Sartre is a classic example of this, and I get the impression that a similar "non serviam" attitude is at the core of Christopher Hitchens' atheism. (2) The Nietzchean view that since serious belief in God's existence is no longer possible, we must realise the full implications of this and create our own morality from scratch and in the full awareness we are doing so, without relying on unexamined assumptions which rested on belief in God. (Undiluted Nietzscheanism of this sort seems relatively rare, but a lot of modern academic secularists seem to go in for a hybrid Marxo-Nietzscheanism which combines belief in "social justice" defined in Marxist terms with a Nietzschean denial that there is an "objective reality" which might validate any beliefs except one's own.) (3) Good old-fashioned Byronic Diabolism - the idea that the world is so obviously cruel and unjust that if a God made it he must be a monster, and that by defying him one shows one's moral superiority and in fact becomes a sort of God oneself - seems to me to have a certain literary currency. Prometheus, who makes human civilisation possible by defying the gods and is unjustly punished for it, is a well-known Romantic archetype for this view of the universe (cf Shelley's PROMETHEUS UNBOUND). Faust can of course be more ambiguous - he can be Goethe's Faust who is heroic in his aspirations, or the older image of Faust damned for the pride which leads to his overreaching. When Spengler called Western Civilisation the creation of "Faustian Man" he was combining these two versions of Faust - suggesting that Western Civilisation was both heroic in its defiance and tragic in that it cannot escape its limitations and must decline like its predecessors.
I did not mean to suggest that all atheists fall into these categories, but that they represent a fairly common sensibility/sensibilities. Of course many religious believers can also be seen as worshipping themselves in monstrously distorted and megalomaniac fashion. Recently in the "truth or supersition" section we have been discussing the hideous cult leader and self-professed Pope Clemente Dominguez, who ruined the lives of thousands by ensnaring them in his "palmarian Catholic Church" which he ruled as if he were God Himself - and milder forms of this can be found in many types of religious devotion, just as non-belief in God did not keep figures like the troskyite Gerry Healy from producing their own exploitative and destructive personality cults.
I hope I have made myself a bit clearer with this explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Fr Tom on Oct 5, 2011 17:04:30 GMT
If I may add a comment here. Atheists in my opinion are just people who cannot see what I term "the truth".
I can see that Los Leandros is angry about something, but my word I have no idea why he is being so unreasonable in this thread. I am a 70 year old man who has now retired. I lived through the uber "catholic" Ireland thing and up until this day I still see people of faith who believe in God and it pleases me.
I dislike the approach of mocking others for what they believe/do not believe and I appriciate human beings no matter what they profess. You may be right..... you may be wrong...... God will judge us all in the end.
As a parting note, I really do feel to blame Nazi and communist actions on athiesm is way off the mark. I am 70 and can see that politics had more to do with the actions of these movements than anything else. Me Leandros, I pray for you and hoipe you see the light soon.
Shalom...... Fr Tom
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 6, 2011 8:25:00 GMT
Oh, oh, Fr. Tom, there is generally a civilised/respectful tone to most posts, unfortunately the odd embittered/irrational one slip's through. Congratulations on being that one. Cato had introduced a very interesting debate which was progessing nicely. Really all your post confirms is that the old adage about wisdom coming with age is definitely not always through. Likewise, I will pray for you, you obviously have unresolved issues ; just try to be tolerant of dissenting views - I know, not a common virtue in Ireland at present ; but no need to follow the mob.
|
|
|
Post by Fr Tom on Oct 12, 2011 17:58:33 GMT
Oh, oh, Fr. Tom, there is generally a civilised/respectful tone to most posts, unfortunately the odd embittered/irrational one slip's through. Congratulations on being that one. Cato had introduced a very interesting debate which was progessing nicely. Really all your post confirms is that the old adage about wisdom coming with age is definitely not always through. Likewise, I will pray for you, you obviously have unresolved issues ; just try to be tolerant of dissenting views - I know, not a common virtue in Ireland at present ; but no need to follow the mob. I respectfully disagree with your assertion. You are exceedingly rude to me for no other reason than the fact I disagree with you. What an awful character trait. I pray you addreess this anger in your life, whatever it may be, and desist projecting your personal anger onto other who merely disagree with your viewpoint. Shalom. Fr Tom
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Oct 13, 2011 9:09:13 GMT
Fr. Tom, if you perceived my comments as being rude, I apologise. It was'nt intended. But you intervened in a perfectly civilised discussion with gratuitously offensive remarks about me. Cato & I were perfectly capable of agreeing to differ. I would disagree with virtually everything on your post but I respect your right to differ. The best exemplar in this regard, I'm sure you will agree, is Pope Benedict. He constantly dialogues with people he fundamentally disagrees with. As I stated elsewhere, two of his closest confidantes are atheists - Jurgen Habermas & Marcello Pera. Will you now withdraw your personalised comments about me. God bless, & best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by Fr Tom on Oct 13, 2011 18:20:39 GMT
Fr. Tom, if you perceived my comments as being rude, I apologise. It was'nt intended. But you intervened in a perfectly civilised discussion with gratuitously offensive remarks about me. Cato & I were perfectly capable of agreeing to differ. I would disagree with virtually everything on your post but I respect your right to differ. The best exemplar in this regard, I'm sure you will agree, is Pope Benedict. He constantly dialogues with people he fundamentally disagrees with. As I stated elsewhere, two of his closest confidantes are atheists - Jurgen Habermas & Marcello Pera. Will you now withdraw your personalised comments about me. God bless, & best wishes. I pointed out that you were coming accross as angry and unreasonable. What is offensive about that? You are coming accross as angry and unreasonable. In return you called my comments "embittered/irrational" pointed out that in your opinion I was unwise despite my years that I have "unresolved issues" and finally that I "Follow the mob" all in one short post. ALL IN ONE SHORT POST!!!! This ignores all the other flippant replies you have made to others here. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a duck. You are coming accross as angry and unreasonable in this thread. Period. Your arguments and behaviour in this thread are indefesable Sir. Downright rude and makes you seem under informed. Sorry..... but sometimes the truth hurts. I cant believe the moderators have not pulled you up on this already. Shalom.... Fr Tom
|
|
|
Post by Fr Tom on Oct 13, 2011 18:27:06 GMT
Furthermore, you are in no position to tell me when and when I can or cannot "intervene" in a discussion. How dare you even pretend that you are. I will make my contribution whether you like it or not Sir. I may be old but I refuse to be pushed around by internet bullys who are above their own station.
This is an open forum for people to discuss issues and this particular section is related to Atheism.
I am perfectly within my rights to make my contribution as long as I stay within the rules.
As far as I am aware you have no authority to tell me when I can or cannot contribute to a discussion.
Shalom..... Fr Tom
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 13, 2011 22:46:01 GMT
Cool it, everyone
|
|
|
Post by Los leandros on Oct 14, 2011 8:18:31 GMT
Agreed hibernicus. Our friend intervened in a perfectly civil ( dare I say interesting ) thread to take a personal pop at me. When I responded in like manner he could'nt take it. In future can contributors stick to the subject under discussion & keep their personal opinions as to whether someone is angry or not ( for anger read don't agree with them ) to themselves. The actual discussion was going quite well, cato & I agreed on some matters, but disagreed on others, but did so with tolerance & respect.
|
|
|
Post by Cato on Oct 17, 2011 16:45:46 GMT
Just sticking my head in to say that I had found Los leandros to be respectful and polite. I think that the criticisms laid against him were unfair. These are passionate matters and deserve vigourous debate but one should not mistake that for bad manners.
|
|
|
Post by Los leandros on Oct 18, 2011 8:33:49 GMT
Thanks Cato. Glad to hear somebody likes me, I was beginning to feel paranoid. If Fr. Tom is still there, lets forgive & forget.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2011 20:57:22 GMT
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate an American evangelical on the grounds that he justifies the massacre of the Canaanites in the Old Testament. A Telegraph blogger explains why the statement in question is more complex than Dawkins makes out: EXTRACT ...Actually, the context is called “Christian apologetics”, and it’s been around for centuries. It's the attempt by scholars to present a rational basis for belief in God. Part of that process is running difficult bits of the Bible past the tests of reason and ethics. To return to the entire post that Dawkins quotes from (because, contrary to what he wrote, context does matter to a serious thinker), Craig begins thus: “These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.” Ergo, Craig’s purpose in writing this piece is to unravel the paradox of a moral Bible that also includes lashings of apparently random violence. Craig stresses that these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written – they are just as alien to us as Beowulf or the Iliad. That’s because Christian society has been shaped by the rules of life outlined in the New Testament, not in the section of The Bible in which this massacre occurs. Far from using this passage to celebrate the slaughter of heathen, Craig is making the point that the revelation of God’s justice has changed over time. The horrors of the Old Testament have been rendered unnecessary by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. That’s why the idiots who protest the funerals of gay soldiers or blow up abortion clinics aren’t just cruel, they’re bad theologians. We are left with two possible conclusions from Richard Dawkin’s flimsy sick note. The first is that he doesn’t understand Christian apologetics, which is why he unintentionally misrepresents Craig’s piece. The most frustrating thing about the New Atheism is that it rarely debates theology on theology's own terms. It approaches metaphor and mysticism as if they were statements of fact to be tested in the laboratory. Worse still, it takes the crudest equations of faith (total submission to an angry sky god) and assumes that they apply to all its believers at all times equally. That most Christians living in the 21st century don’t know who the Canaanites were and only go to church because it brings them an intangible inner peace, totally escapes these atheist pedants. The second explanation is that Dawkins is a coward. He likes to pick fights either with dunces (like the deliciously silly and obviously gay Ted Haggard) or with incredibly nice old Christians with no fire in their belly (like Rowan Williams). Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly. This is a damning indictment not only of him, but of the clerical establishment of Great Britain. But this time, he understood that he was up against a pro. In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy. In Craig, Dawkins met his match. Like Jonah, he was confronted by the truth and he ran away. END blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 1, 2011 21:53:13 GMT
Two impressions of William Lane Craig (the apologist whom Dawkins refused to debate) in action. Thirsty Gargoyle discusses his arguments and their limitations: thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.com/2011/10/reasonable-faith-dialogue-of-deaf-part.htmlPeter Hitchens gives a more general impression: hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.htmlEXTRACT ...I have to confess here that I don’t find Craig’s debating style or manner very attractive. It is too smooth and American for me – and his best moment (again, for me) came when he dropped his salesman’s manner and said, in effect, that he was sorry if he seemed too certain, and that his fundamental claims were modest ones – that the Theist position was scientifically tenable. .. The important thing about this is that what Craig does is simple. He uses philosophical logic, and a considerable knowledge of physics, to expose the shallowness of Dawkins’s arguments. I would imagine that an equally serious Atheist philosopher would be able to give him a run for his money, but Dawkins isn’t that. He would have been embarrassingly out of his depth. For what Craig achieves is this. He simply retakes an important piece of ground that Christianity lost through laziness and cowardice, rather than because it lacked the weapons to defend it. He doesn’t (in my view) achieve total victory over the unbelievers. He simply says : ‘In this logic, which you cannot deny, and in this science, which you cannot deny either, it is clear that there is plenty of room for the possibility that God exists and made the universe’. No scientifically literate person, who is informed and can argue logically, can in truth say that he is wrong. The trouble is that so many ‘official’ Christians have more or less conceded this ground, not being very firm believers themselves, and lacking Craig’s training in logic and science. He is the antidote to the lazy belief that in some way ‘science’ is incompatible with ‘religion’, and to the idea that all believers are unlettered morons who think the earth is 5,000 years old and that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. .. END OF EXTRACT
|
|