This guy essentially figured out that fence-riding allows you to sell books to everyone! Hooray for ambivalence!

>> ^shuac:

This guy essentially figured out that fence-riding allows you to sell books to everyone! Hooray for ambivalence!


How about criticizing religious violence while advocating state violence, is that fence-riding?

Hedges is spot on here. Atheism has become the new state "religion". Religion at it's core is about mind control, and the new Atheist movement is no different.

His debate with Sam Harris is excellent. It's on the sift. Chris Hedges has a very different kind of faith than most. Although he self identifies as a Christian, it feels to me more of an Einsteinian type of religion, interested in the mysteries of science and human existence, and not obsessed with heaven and hell and taking scripture literally. I'm guessing most atheists on the sift would find a lot of common ground with him, so careful with the knee jerk reactions.

Let's not forget all the potential for good in Christianity, even if the loudest Christian voices in the media tend to be cruel, shallow and judgemental. I think the defiance of the early part of this atheist revival helped us establish ourselves, but now we are mainstream (to a degree). It's time for the next step, where we show tolerance to religious people who are kind, loving and empathetic. We hate it when we are all painted with the same stripe, so lets not be hypocrites

The powers that be love to see us divided and beating the crap out of each other. What if we stopped fighting each other and turned that aggression against our corporate wardens.

"The powers that be love to see us divided and beating the crap out of each other. What if we stopped fighting each other and turned that aggression against our corporate wardens."

This coming from one of the most partisan people on videosift. Hysterical.

I really wanted to * quality this because it was refreshing to see a calm and rational opposing point of view to the anti-theism movement. But I can't.

I am a harsh critic of both Sam Harris and Hitchens for many of the reasons that Hedges mentions in this video. HOWEVER, I don't believe for a moment that either one of them condones violence as a means to promoting atheism. What Hedges is suggesting about them is a gross misrepresentation of their positions. See, for example, Harris's rebuttal of Hedges's claims about the nuclear first strike here:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

I wholeheartedly agree with @dystopianfuturetoday that it doesn't serve any purpose to attack people, who ultimately have the same goal as anti-theists--a more peaceful and equitable world--simply on the grounds that those people have faith in a religion. While Greta Christina points out that anti-theists have many reasons to be angry, if that anger turns to blind fury and they begin striking out at innocent bystanders I think it'll doom their movement.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

...

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, December 11th, 2011 5:10pm PST - promote requested by geo321.

Let's be clear, atheists have NO agenda. Atheists would prefer to be quiet on the subject. However, every day we see religion influencing politics, education and, as a result, restricting freedom of thought/action, so people who value their freedom will, obviously, speak out. Here is a good deal; keep your faith to yourself. Keep out of politics and stop brainwashing kids. In short, humanists/atheists/free thinkers do not care which bronze age myth you follow. Be a slave in private, keep your dark age practices private, and allow the rest of us to be free of your dogma. Do this, and we will have no need to comment on your "faith."

I don't know how good this man's positions are on other topics, but when it comes to atheism and anti-theism, he spouts such a load of ignorant nonsense it makes my brain hurt. I could rant on about strawman arguments, gross misrepresentation, etc etc, but PZ Myers says it all much better than I could:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/chris_hedges_wastes_everyones.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/what_the_f_is_wrong_with_chris.php

...

Welcome to our world. Christian's outside of the recent American fundamentalist fad have to be tarred with the same brush as them. We're not allowed to say

"Christians aren't like that. Christians are like x, y, and z."

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.

Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture

Chris Hedges is good at two things.


1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

Ah Christians.

Rewind around a hundred years and you were all frightened of one another and never called yourselves christians. What you say? Methodist, Baptist, Quaker, Catholic, Lutheran - all these different groups thought of themselves as distinct and regarded the 'others' with suspicion. This was one of the reasons they all agreed to a separation of church and state to begin with.

Most of the 'Christians' fought against things like birth control (not just catholics - protestants of all ilks too), women's right to vote, the end of slavery, and tried to censor free speech.


If there is anything to be admired about Christianity is that it is amazing in its ability to adapt to the times. That is - completely contradict most of what it used to say.

Nice find! BTW, isn't it easier to make money off of being extreme than moderate?>> ^kevingrr:

Wow. Every time I hear Chris Hedges speak speak more lies fly out of his mouth. Sam Harris is not, has not, and my guess will never advocate for a nuclear strike.
Per: Sam Harris Regarding Nuking the Arab World and Torture
Chris Hedges is good at two things.
1. Making fallacious straw man arguments where he distorts, misrepresents, and lies about his opponents position.
2. Making money off pretending to be moderate.

This guy's just spouting bullshit. Consider this my virtual down-vote.

I attended the debate between Hedges and Harris at the Wadsworth Theater in Los Angeles with great anticipation, as it is I am a big fan of both men. After it concluded I walked away thinking what a shame it was these two don't get along. They are both well left of center and agree on quite a lot.

Chris Hedges and David Eagleman should take a critical reading class together.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin

This guy is a christian. He talks about and believes in magical things that just do not exist or are invisible, silent, unproven, and lacking any verifiable evidence. He is not different from any other garden variety christian creationist. Of course Chis Hedges must attack the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet men of whose logic is unimpeachable and unapproachable by the likes of Chis Hedges.

Herd mentality in action!

@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib

Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


An odd number? Oh, thanks I missed one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890
^The first 6 minutes or so cover how fundamental Christians are offended when their beliefs are challenged by atheists. Based on the responses to Hedges in this thread, his argument about "fundamental" atheists seems right on point.

Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

@marbles, If you want respect, then say something worthy of respect. If you want rebuttal, then make a point that is persuasive enough to require rebuttal. You've spent this entire thread taking potshots at people you don't like and have added absolutely nothing to the dialog. If you want to sit at the grown ups table, then act like a grown up.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Oh, this about respect? Did you get your feelings hurt that I pointed out your hypocrisy once again? LOL

You pay lip service to getting along and then act like a petty child. (At the grown-ups table, no less!) LOL Bravo.

>> ^marbles:

@dystopianfuturetoday
Oh, this about respect? Did you get your feelings hurt that I pointed out your hypocrisy once again? LOL
You pay lip service to getting along and then act like a petty child. (At the grown-ups table, no less!) LOL Bravo.


What are you talking about?

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.

i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.



but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:

whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

So you're saying that if it wasn't for religion humans would find some other aspect of human nature to exploit? Not really profound, but it really does make sense. For example, religion is being used as a means to deny gays the same rights the rest of us have. However, when it comes down to it, some people just feel that homosexuality is icky. And you know what? As ignorant as that is, it's just as natural for somebody to be repulsed by certain sexual behaviors as it is to be attracted to some sexual behaviors. As long as people disagree there will be conflict. The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power. Furthermore, if somebody doesn't agree with something that's ok. And since there is no god, therefore no word of god, our differences are merely individual preference.>> ^peggedbea:

I want to believe that this is the point chris hedge's is attempting to make:
whenever i listen to or read anything from sam harris i feel like he's trying to blame religion for all the evil. but i don't feel like he's naming it correctly. there's a more basic manipulation taking place. religion is simply the chosen mechanism. religion is a tool for social control. faith is a rather benign human characteristic. people WANT to have faith in something. and religion manipulates that desire to control X population. it's not the faith in something mystic and silly that fucks up the world, it's the emotional manipulation employed. but in alternate universe B, maybe the mechanism for social control looks completely different. and there are more than one mechanism for social control happening in this universe. class and race and sex are the most obvious. in harris's effort to vilify one single mechanism, instead of the underlying attribute (you could call it greed?), it often feels like he's creating another kind of tribalism. us vs. them. smart atheists vs. stupid evil religious people. i feel very divisive when i listen to him and his ilk. i'd rather not dislike religious people. i'd rather focus all my bad feelings on the men who manipulate basest desires to control the masses for financial gain. i'd rather hear more about who they are and how to stop them then about how insane religious people are going to destroy all of creation.

>> ^rottenseed:

The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power.

See, while I don't agree with everything Hedges said here, I think this is the kind of talk that he's referring to. That statement you made just painted all religions in one broad stroke and set it up as if it is "us," the intelligent and tolerant people, versus "them," the ignorant and intolerant masses. It's that kind of rhetoric that he (and I for that matter) find divisive and counterproductive. Religious people--many of them Christians--who would have agreed with you that it is wrong to deny basic human rights to people (such as the right to marry) on the basis of their sexuality are now painted as your opponents instead.

Furthermore, while certainly some forms of religion as practiced by certain peoples in certain countries at certain times do in fact fit your description of religion quite well, "religion" as a concept does not. There's nothing about religion per se that requires a binary worldview nor does it require a lack of relativity or tolerance. I'd definitely agree with you that some instantiations of religion, though, have turned out that way.

I said it in the Greta Christina Sift that I linked to above, but I'll say it more clearly now: I think attacking "religion" is Don Quixotic. Time is better spent attacking specific features of specific religions in specific contexts that result in suffering, such as the denial of marriage to homosexuals on religions grounds, female genital mutilation, and so forth. These kinds of things anger both theists and atheists and we should all work together to eliminate them rather than squabble with each other over our individual preference to believe or not believe in a particular religion.

>> ^Gallowflak:


What are you talking about?


I'm talking about how the new Atheist movement is full of young mature independent astute free-thinkers. They take criticism in stride and are open to opposing views and opinions. The responses to my comments here certainly reaffirms my position.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Gallowflak:

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how the new Atheist movement is full of young mature independent astute free-thinkers. They take criticism in stride and are open to opposing views and opinions. The responses to my comments here certainly reaffirms my position.


I think that most people absorb into groups that resonate with them because of highly tenuous bullshit, rather than a genuine ideological or intellectual kinship, and pay lip service to the ideas of the clan which is most convenient or comfortable for them to "be" in. So I think that a movement based around critical thinking and secular humanism has a hard time from the get-go, because most people aren't critical, or reasonable, or rational, even if they fancy to pretend otherwise.

Honestly, I never really expected many of those in the new atheist movement to be up to scratch, even before going into it. And there's a serious problem with some rather douchey and stiff figureheads.

These are all things we can talk about, though! There are people here genuinely interested in having a conversation, even if they forget that, sometimes. But you don't seem to want a conversation.

Maybe you feel embattled, and you'd probably have good reason. But making quips and then taking people's legitimately pissed reactions as a kind of vindication of your point, a point you haven't actually made, isn't a good way to get anything done.

It just seems like, rather than having an argument, you have an attack, and there's no real response to that other than rejection. And that's what you got. It isn't groupthink or hivemind activity, it's just that, here, you're not part of the dialogue, you're just offensive white noise.

If you have something to say and a case to make, there's at least one person who will actually fucking read it. But I've not seen it yet.

>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


Marbles, it's been quite a while since many critical thinking sifters and siftettes have ceased to take you seriously (re: conspiracy theories). The downvote is, at least in my case, a quick way of saying "your argument is bunk but I don't wish to waste my time on you". But if you feel better turning downvotes into a sign of your rightness, feel free, although you should probably pay royalties to your fellow TRUTH-teller shinybee, he's been using that pathetic line for a while now.

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).

I'm not suggesting we silence ourselves, I'm just suggesting we be a little more respectful and a little less evangelical in our approach. Cthulhu knows I've gone through years of spite and aggression - sex on a church alter, ripping the book of Genesis to shreds (in words) at a dinner party and baiting people who are clearly outmatched into a theological debate they have no hope of surviving, among countless other examples. Whatever. It was a phase, and I'm not ashamed of those days, but at the same time I don't really think all that spite accomplished anything but to further alienate people of faith.

I find my older self wanting to be a good ambassador for atheism, rather than a bad-ass, kick-ass sword wielding crusader. I want atheism to appear as calm and mainstream as possible. I want to lead by example. Secular Jesus.

Beyond that, I see how damaging religion is when it's used as a wedge issue, and we contribute to that wedge by terrifying otherwise good people of faith and driving them into the political margins. I believe that people of faith are more susceptible to fear than non-theists, and that in many ways we scare them further to into the arms of fascists and plutocrats when we go on the offensive. Back in the day when democracy was strong, people of faith stood along side the labor movement, the civil rights movement and other importance social movements. All that 'care for the poor, turn the other cheek, love your brother, rich people are going to hell (eye of the needle)' stuff was taken seriously. I'd love to see that altruistic, socially conscious, admirable side of Christianity make a comeback, and drive the free market, homophobic, racist bible belt bullies back into the fucking swamp where they belong.

We don't have to agree, but I want you to at least understand (and hopefully respect) where I'm coming from. Good chat @hpqp.

>> ^jbaber:

Welcome to our world. Christian's outside of the recent American fundamentalist fad have to be tarred with the same brush as them. We're not allowed to say

"Christians aren't like that. Christians are like x, y, and z."

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by xxovercastxx.

@hpqp

I've sat here thinking how to reply to you for about 30 minutes now, but I can't really think of anything to add to what @dystopianfuturetoday already wrote. I think all of us have the same goal--a better world. We disagree mostly on how best to get there. For my part I have to side with dystopianfuturetoday's comments above. I think being actively hostile to "religion" is going to make progress towards that better world slower rather than faster.

To put it another way, I won't deny that many problems in the world would be made better (if not outright solved) if religion disappeared from the planet. I'm just not convinced that verbally attacking and abusing religion (or those who practice one) is going to make a world without religion a reality. And I'm also not convinced that eliminating religion is the best way to solve the problems in the first place. I suppose in the end I'm also not convinced that religion is irredeemable--that no measures can be put in place to drastically minimize the harm it does while maximizing its benefits.

But I would guess you've got a different take on all of those things. The only thing I can do in that case is echo @dystopianfuturetoday's hope that you respectfully disagree.

Frankenbutt wanted me to type this:

We's gots to get the peoples together!

[ I did not edit for spelling because I felt Frankie's flow had a certain je ne said quoi ]

>> ^kevingrr:
...Most of the 'Christians' fought against things like ... the end of slavery

One thing I can argue with is using "most" falsely to strengthen arguments.

Most defending slavery were Christians.

Most Christians defended slavery.

@jbaber

"Truth for authority, not authority for truth."


The facts are that religious institutions, specifically the many denominations of Christianity in the United States, supported the status quo in regard to slavery, women's rights, birth control, evolution, and tried to censor free speech.

See the following, Slavery - 1 Timothy 6:1 as used by southern ministers promoting slavery, the Comstock Laws( and Anthony Comstock on wiki) and their abuse in regard to 1)atheism (which was labeled obscene) 2) birth control 3) free speech.

While I think the abolitionist movement specifically owes more to Enlightenment philosophy - not atheism or Christianity, I believe it is justified to point on the specific failings of religious institutions.

Were some Christians abolitionists? Of course. John Brown was as were many of the delegates to the 1840 convention (many were Quakers) which also denied women delegates the right to vote.

But other important leaders such as William Garrison and Henry Stanton were anti-clerical.

In closing, religious institutions, as a whole, were not and have not been the catalyst of change, but of upholding the status quo.

@kevingrr

You've changed from

"Most Christians fought against the end of slavery."

"Some Christians fought to keep slavery and some fought to end it."

The only common factor in all that ignoring and downvoting is you and your snide, passive-aggressive and sarcastic comments in this thread. We're ignoring you. You haven't made any contributions to the discussion, just attacked individuals, or kinda implied a disapproval in some backhanded way. The only things you have said that were on topic show you are two steps behind, like in researching the context of Harris's remarks on nuclear attacks, for example. The best way to kill a stupid argument like that is to ignore it, and the best way to still show disapproval is to downvote.

Just because you say something in a thread doesn't mean people are obliged to engage with it. So take this opportunity to look back at your comments from the beginning and try and imagine why anyone would want to answer them. For starters, people don't like answering sarcasm, indirect criticism and personal insults. So if you want your comments to get some attention, start with that.>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

>> ^peggedbea:

i'm upvoting only for the discussion here.
i'm an atheist. but i'm not a passionate one.
i normally really like chris hedge's.
i normally really don't like sam harris, or pz myers for that matter. i used to really really dislike hitchen's (the whole pro-iraq war thing) but i find him more palletable now. i think hedge's nailed what exactly it is about those men that rubs me the wrong way, it's the haughtiness.

but... this clip is full of straw men. it's beneath hedge's. feels like an advertisement for his book. but instead of making me want to read it, it makes me want to throw it at him for trying to sell shit with straw men and inflammatory-ish-ness. he can do better.


@peggedbea I have to completely agree, I've seen some really excellent arguments and speeches made by Hedges, so I was a bit saddened to see the over-generalized arguments he makes in this advert. Reading the quotes @dystopianfuturetoday posted (and I've seen the debates) leads me to believe there are some elements of truth in Hedges argument, however the way he presents it completely misses out the detail, where important distinctions are made.

All you militant atheists need in order to develop an understanding of tolerance is to fall in love with a decent, tolerant, respectful person of faith. It's a valuable life lesson.

Here's another response by Sam Harris. This time on Chris Hedges equating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik



Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges

I'll vote it up for the conversation going on in response to the video.

>> ^entr0py:

Here's another response by Sam Harris. This time on Chris Hedges equating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik


Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges


THIS! Thank you for reminding me of this, Harris expresses what I think of Hedges much better than I can.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chric hedges, secular, religious, fundamentalism, critique, hitchens' to 'chris hedges, secular, religious, fundamentalism, critique, hitchens' - edited by Fusionaut

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

@enoch while I agree with you on some of the differences between Harris and Hitchens, Harris has some excellent thoughts to share on non-religious topics, meditation comes to mind, check out his blogs on that field, they are quite 'enlightening'. There is a lot more to him than simple religious bashing, although I'm not 100% sure of his motivations.

One part of your dialogue I think glosses over a rather important point - those that call into question the intelligence of religious people do so rightly, there is no evidence for god, it is up to you (and you alone, because nobody else has been able to do it) to prove the existence of god, and to back up your beliefs. So any time your intelligence is called into question I think should be looked at as an opportunity to enlighten those that do so with your own wisdom. I'm sure you have some interesting reasons for your beliefs, so use the opportunity to open a discussion with your atheist militant acquaintance, don't assume he/she is closed minded to your perspective on life just because they don't believe in a god like you do. So the point is that you don't need to be militant anything to make a rational observation, and voicing that opinion certainly shouldn't be viewed as militant either, so I think classifying anyone that does, as you have, is sweeping with a rather broad brush.

One way you could look at it is that those that question your beliefs are not doing so out of any atheist fundamentalist principles, but they simply believe in truth, just as you believe in some sort of deity - they have just as much right to defend truth as you do your religion.

thank you @ghark.
i always appreciate your insightful comments but i have to disagree with your main premise and here is why:
i have made no bold statements concerning my faith,just that i am a man of faith.
so i have not put myself in a position where i have to defend a non-existent dogma or doctrine.
because i have none.

which leads me to my next point.
to argue faith JUST on the faith itself is a wasteful argument.by its very nature faith is based on the intangible and therefore cannot be argued in any concrete or conclusive manner.this is why you will not find me knocking on your door asking if you have found jesus,or allah or buddha for that matter and to imply that the onus is on me to prove the validity of my faith further implies that i have the desire to do so.
which i do not.
because faith is personal.

the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value.
now the discussion on WHY somehow has faith,or a lack of it is a much more interesting conversation and THAT conversation can open so many avenues of dialogue which can benefit all parties involved.

i think the best approach to have a decent discussion about faith vs atheism is to define the terms before the discussion even begins.
and this has to be the main definition to discuss:
define GOD.
because if you begin a discussion without making that vital distinction the discussion has a tendency to devolve into presumption based on ones own subjective knowledge.

i have had many discussions with atheists (quite a few here on the sift) and usually this is due to their curiosity about me being a man of faith.they were respectful.they allowed me to express where my faith resides and they didnt judge,many times they even understood (though still disagreed).
those discussions with "militant" atheists went in a totally different direction which almost mirrored my discussion with fundamentalist christians and muslims and what i found most abhorrent about those discussions was the PRESUMPTION that not only were they absolutely correct but also where my faith originated.
this is the epitome of fundamentalism and i find it not only lazy but distasteful.

concerning harris, you may be correct.my opinion of him is anecdotal and based on his lectures i have watched and being a neuroscientist i am sure he has much to say about things concerning the mind.my point was that hitchens went after what needed to be addressed.which is dogma and doctrine.harris shows a palpable disdain for anybody who deems themselves a person of faith.which is just arrogant and weak.

my whole point was to express the difference between a regular atheist (is that even a term?) and a militant atheist.just like their is a huge difference between a religious person and a fundamentalist religious person.
in my experience i have found the militant will react viscerally just by the mere mention of "faith" and will presume a whole litany of non-presented facts based on nothing more than their own prejudice.the fundamentalist will do basically the same thing when the validity of their holy writ is brought under scrutiny as not being the un-erring word of god.both of these factions make the mistake that their position is inviolate based on their own limited understandings.

at least i KNOW i do not know everything and wisdom needs to be tempered with reason and conclusions drawn from experience otherwise it is not wisdom but rather misused data.
i am a man of faith.
you are not.
and i am totally ok with that.
namaste.

I am tired of intellectually dishonest idiots.

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.

I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.

It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.

Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.

Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.

edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.

We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.

The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.

I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716

Assumption is not the same as faith.

>> ^longde:

Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

The point is you personally haven't tested the results and the evidence.

It doesn't matter why or how or by what mechanism you have faith; you still have faith. Somehow, though, your faith is of more quality than someone else's. You reasoned out your faith, so it's OK.

"Assumption"? Let's not play semantics, here.>> ^gwiz665:

This is demonstrably false. "Taken on faith" is a huge misrepresentation.
We do not have faith in spite of the evidence, we have "faith" in the evidence. We can actually check up on it, we can even test them ourselves. If the results don't add up, one of our axioms (the stuff "taken on faith") might be false.
The entire scientific method rests on the fact that we can TEST our hypotheses, theories and the like.
I did a post on this earlier http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jill
ette-An-Atheists-Guide-to-the-2012-Election?loadcomm=1#comment-1353716
Assumption is not the same as faith.
>> ^longde:
Whatever. Even atheists have faith. At least the ones that claim adherence to science.
Unless one has reproduced all scientific results and math proofs over the past hundreds of years, the efficacy of science and the honesty of scientists are taken on faith. This from an atheist trained as a physicist/engineer. There is nothing I have read about the scientific method that claims infallibility, but listening to alot of scientists (who should know better) and laymen atheists you would think it does.
edit: upvote for the discussion>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

I have seen the results of other people testing it. Again, the scientific method intrinsically tests it for me, so I don't have to spend my life doing it.

The scientific method is not some entity doing some ethereal quality control on scientists' results. In practice, it's a set of principles and guidelines that not everyone follows or even interprets in the same way.

When you say you have seen the results, you sound like a xtian describing the sun rising or a banana.

I don't know that nuclear reactors actually work, I can't really test it because I don't have one available, but I think they do work, because I can see the results of them. Saying I have "faith" that they work, is misrepresenting what is actually going on.


So then, you're a scientific agnostic?

How is what you're saying about nuclear reactors any different than some xtian who thinks that there's an angel inside powering the nuclear reactor? You just have a 'logical' basis for your faith.

>> ^gwiz665:

Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.


thanks bud for making my point.
well done.

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).

My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.

While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.

Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.

MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.

Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.

For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)

Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.

I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

What I find ironic is that he states that religious faith limits curiosity and the search for knowledge, yet admitted that he'll believe "assume" what a scientist presents to him, since the 'scientific method intrinsically tests' science results.

What this implies to me is that if Dawkins or Tyson shows says something is true scientifically proven, such a person will believe it out of hand, especially if the person doesn't have the resources or intellect field-specific skills to delve deeper.>> ^enoch:

>> ^gwiz665:
Faith is the cancer of the mind, religion is just the outcome. The very essence of faith is to limit your curiosity, your search for knowledge and your very mind. I cannot abide by this.
I especially cannot abide by it when it is in people of power, like politicians.
It saddens me that smart, intellectual people are afflicted by this cancer, because it is such a damn shame that all they say have to be double-checked, because you cannot be sure whether it is actually founded in reason or in faith.
Faith has no value to me. Faith got us nowhere, reason got us to the stars.

thanks bud for making my point.
well done.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.

>> ^longde:

Thanks.



Scientists get to have successful projects, only because they don't break new ground, and only because they don't advance any hypothesis that lacks popularity.

@enoch thanks for the intelligent and thoughtful post. If I may ask, what do you have faith in?

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through yourcomments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

http://i.imgur.com/7qHJe.png hehehe

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

Have you ever read the bible? I've found most critics of the bible haven't actually even read it, much less understood it. Generally, the average atheist will pick through it and find a few things he doesn't like and then turns off his brain at that point. The intellectual scholarship of Christianity is much greater than you understand, and if you studied the bible for an entire lifetime you still wouldn't know everything there is to know that is in it. It is inexaustible.

I'll give you a few reasons why I think the bible is credible. The first two are personal. One, that revelation was given to me about certain facts in the bible, before I ever read or understood it, so that when I did read it, it was instantly confirmed to me as being divinely inspired.

Two, by following the words of Jesus Christ, my life has been completely transformed for the better in every tangible way. I stopped doing many unhealthy things I formally did not have the willpower or inclination to stop doing, and these near instantaneously. There was also a transformation of my character, and a 100 percent cure to any depression that I experienced, that being replaced with joy. None of this was accomplished by hard work on my part; I simply believed in Gods promises and followed His word and it all happened supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. The experience I've had matches the promises to the letter.

Three, the bible accurately describes the human condition. It lays bare the nature of man and describes the fundemental dichotomies of his existence. It accurately predicts human behavior and describes in finite detail the mechanisms that create those behaviors.

Four, the bible accurately describes the moral realm. It shows that right and wrong is intuitive to human nature, being that each of us has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. This matches the universal norms of morality we see in all human civilizations. It also matches my experience, that although humans can justify any kind of behavior, that there is a sense of absolute right and wrong which precedes any intellectual calculation. It further illustrates the moral responsibility we have to our Creator, because sin transgresses His moral law. That the guilty conscience you have is foremost because you have offended a holy God, and the things you think you have gotten away with are really the chains that bind you.

Five, the bible has much fulfilled prophecy, starting with all of the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled hundreds and in some cases over a 1000 years after they were written. There are also prophecies about israel going into captivity at certain times down to the year, the destruction of Jerusalem, the recent reformation of Israel, accurately predicting even the very currency it would be using.

Six, that it is historically accurate, and has been verified by archaelogy literally 10s of thousands of times. The people, places and civilizations in the bible have been confirmed as being real and existing as described, and this over much scoffing and skepticism over the centuries.

Seven, that it contains certain facts about the world that simply could not have been known at the time, such as information about the hydrologic cycle, ocean currents and springs, the right day for circumcision (on the 8th day the chemicals for blod clotting are at their highest peak), that the earth is free floating in space, the uncountable number of stars (at the time they thought that they could put a number to it by counting the ones we can see), etc..or at the most basic, that it says the Universe had a beginning, which science didn't figure out until more recently..and scientists actually used to use their belief in an eternal Universe to discredit the bible..

One of the biggest confirmations was that I received the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms everything Jesus said is true. It is something tangible and is an experiential experience that isn't simply wishful thinking. More than an experience, it is to know God personally, because His Spirit dwells within you.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the person of Jesus Himself. His words outrank by a vast degree any earthly wisdom, and expose the vain philosophies of man as foolish and futile. His words are a fountain of life, living and active, and they set the standard for all human discourse. Indeed, they are the words this civilization is built upon. The transforming power they have had on the world and in the hearts of men is beyond dispute, and direct proof of their pure truth. To follow the example of Jesus is the most difficult thing any person could ever try to do (indeed it is impossible without supernatural help) and it is also the most rewarding (as in eternally). In truth, they are the only words that lead to life. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

So, these are a few reasons I think the bible is credible. What I can tell you is that without the Holy Spirit you will never understand it, because it is truth that comes by supernatural revelation. Feel free to disagree, but I was once in your position, and believed much the same things about the bible. You just cannot imagine how far off you are from understanding it until that veil is removed from your eyes.

>> ^gwiz665

Fictional characters can have an effect on the world, too

@qwiz665
right on brother.
i am glad you posted that last comment.people needed to see that you were not some rabid atheist raging against a theosophic world.
you rage against bigotry,incuriosity,hypocrisy and the dumbing down of your fellow man by way of religious decree.
and on that point my brother i would stand side by side with you.

on your points that my faith somehow detracts from my curiosity or wonder is patently wrong.it is quite the opposite and i am sure it is for most people of faith.the fundamentalist is the one who struggles with new discoveries,because those discoveries may contradict holy writ.
i am not shackled by such limitations.
in fact,every discovery man has made has only illuminated the wonder and brilliance of this creative universe.

if we were to trim down the myriad redundancies between my faith and an atheist it would simply be this:(this of for you too @ghark)
we are creatures of spirit made manifest by flesh.
thats it.we are spiritual beings.
that spirit is the spark of the divine and reflects the nature of the divine.
bill hicks said it right:

If by spirit, I can infer electrical state, then I'm cool with that.

In general, faith is a mechanism to stop asking questions, this is what I mean when it detracts curiosity. I'm glad yours is not like that.

>> ^enoch:

@qwiz665
right on brother.
i am glad you posted that last comment.people needed to see that you were not some rabid atheist raging against a theosophic world.
you rage against bigotry,incuriosity,hypocrisy and the dumbing down of your fellow man by way of religious decree.
and on that point my brother i would stand side by side with you.
on your points that my faith somehow detracts from my curiosity or wonder is patently wrong.it is quite the opposite and i am sure it is for most people of faith.the fundamentalist is the one who struggles with new discoveries,because those discoveries may contradict holy writ.
i am not shackled by such limitations.
in fact,every discovery man has made has only illuminated the wonder and brilliance of this creative universe.
if we were to trim down the myriad redundancies between my faith and an atheist it would simply be this:(this of for you too @ghark)
we are creatures of spirit made manifest by flesh.
thats it.we are spiritual beings.
that spirit is the spark of the divine and reflects the nature of the divine.
bill hicks said it right:

what a load of shit.

edit: Yes, I'm sure the religious right and atheists will join forces... does he even live on this planet?

@shinyblurry Thank you for posting your reasons for believing the Bible to be credible. It is refreshing to have someone properly lay out their case instead of the normal circular reasoning I normally hear (God is real because the bible says it, the bible is true because God wrote it).

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had fun reading it.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's not the way the world works.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed, what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

2) What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before, what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally? Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.
These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

I think your have veiled your eyes more than I do.


Yea, I tell you, if you do not have an orange aura, you will never understand the complexities of the universe.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

@shinyblurry thank you for your post, I will read it through later. And happy new year.

Happy New Year @gwiz665