Atheists: no God, no reason, just whining
Superstar atheists are motivated by anger -- and boohoo victimhood.
By Charlotte Allen
May 17, 2009
I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.
Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.
My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?
Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen17...
I still would like to know
I still would like to know why a person is offended by something that does not exist ?
yes ???
Why did you revive this
Why did you revive this thing?
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
Moderators! Can you please
Moderators! Can you please give this thread a decent burial?
I am not an atheist, but I relate to their compalint
I go to GOP meetings. Someone says "Let us pray." Now, I don't generally pray in public, but I try to get along and I TRY to pray, which for ME is more about inner silence and seeking guidance. About that time, someone starts talking out loud, explaining to their Creator what is going on on earth and what the Creator ought to be doing about it. OK, I find that whole thing a bit arrogant but at least it is NOT my prayer, it is theirs. Then they close it off with "In Jesus' name we pray."
That is not right. I do not invoke deities. Period. If only Christians are invited to pray, then the opening line needs to be "Let us pray to Jesus" then I can leave the room, as I do NOT want lumped into that group.
It is rude, it is offensive, and it is a lie. It seems like people who are praying would want to be extremely honest - they are talking with their god. Unless they have taken a survey and made certain everyone is indeed praying to Jesus, they ought to close with "In Jesus' name I pray."
If Christians had to endure the constant onslaught of Muslim ideology, perhaps they would be more understanding. Hang on, that day will be here soon. When you get snookered into a prayer and someone closes it with "Praise Allah" I wonder how you will like it.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
WHO...
keeps responding to this crazy thread?
The definition of Athiest is someone who refutes the idea of "God".
"God" is defined as being supernatural, associated with "goodness", and having human characteristics.
All That Is is the most that "God" can be.
All That Is is more intelligent, omnipresent, magnificent and awe inspiring than one can imagine.
Everyone knows that All That Is is bigger than them.
Just like everybody knows that the human body is far greater than the human mind. (The mind does not beat your heart, breathe your air, fight your illnesses, grow your limbs, drive your hunger, feel your physical pain, or drive your sexual impulses.)
The body is far more intelligent than the mind.
All That Is is far more intelligent than the body.
The human mind is puny compared to All That Is.
So All That Is is not something that can be beleived in.
The supernatural cannot be proven, it is a belief, so therefore, All That Is is not supernatural.
"Goodness" is a judgement. All That Is just is. It cannot be good or bad.
All That Is is far beyond the human mind. The human mind tries to filter All That Is through the mind but it is impossible. All That Is needs no human characteristics.
So NOBODY can be an Athiest.
Those who try to filter All That Is through the mind made belief systems need to quit thinking so much and learn from the so-called Athiests.
This is my explaination of All That Is, in so many words.
So what? Who cares? I really don't. Will anybody read this nonsense? I am addicted to having what I say mean something.
Someday, my life will be reduced to a dash between two dates on a tombstone.
whoop di doo!!
mind body dichotomy
The body isn't more intelligent than the mind. Neither can exist without the other in their natural state. Your premise is false and your logic isn't sound.
"I am addicted to having what I say mean something."
Really?
the body
is far more intelligent than the mind. Animals do just fine with relatively no mind.
Is that the only part you can poke holes in?
Come on, give me more.
"Animals do just fine with relatively no mind."
WHAT? REALLY? What the heck is your definition of a "mind" then? While we may be more intelligent than many animals -- maybe not all -- it's crazy to say animals have next to no mind.
Emotion comes from your 'mind', right? Are you saying animals have no emotion?
--------
Fossils Rock!
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
instincts...
is how most creatures live the majority of their lives. They do not think, they just act. They are completely in the present moment. They do not worry about the future or carry old baggage. In a sense, they have no suffering.
Remember Pavlov's dog? He responded from conditioned response. Not from deductive reasoning. So Pavlov deduced.
I think animals must have some sort of emotion. I had four dogs last week. This week I have only three and one of them has moped around for three days.
Do emotions come from the mind? I do not know.
"They do not think"
OMG. Absurd. Humans can be conditioned exactly the same as Pavlov's dog. There is no difference in the mind of the human and the mind of the animal, just different degrees of mental capacity.
Humans ARE animals. The more advanced animals have all kinds of emotions, happiness, sadness, mourning, anger. You see that in your dogs, but don't recognize it?
--------
Fossils Rock!
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
i agree....
fossils do rock!!!!
Humans have A Soul animals
Humans have A Soul animals do not ..Your soul is controlled by your BELIEF system that everyone chooses, or aquires over time.. Do you know of any other animal or creature that has a belief system ? If you do please specify.
yes ???
Your argument is based on
Your argument is based on your opinion..and personal belief..not actual fact...You are NO better than any other living creature..Nor any more important..As a matter of my own personal opinion..we humans are beneath other animals because we are a plague..None of us have a soul..Regardless of my opinion or yours..What was the purpose of digging this crappy thread out of it's grave? Arguments?
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
I observe my own animals
Animals appear to have belief systems in that a chicken scratches is places she knows will produce insects, not by instict, but by experience. A cat might have an instinct to trap, but my cat is herding the chickens... appearing to have a belief system, not an instincy, but a belief that I will lose favor with the cat over the chickens... the cat's instinct would have it kill the chichens, eh?
Some people find soul mates in animals.
Animals have souls, as animals make choices and take risks, and they may think I'm "god" in that I produce food and shelter and even love them.
To claim an animal has not a soul is a form of specisism, where you think one animal is better than the rest. Or that a soul is like feathers or fur, one has one or not. But I believe all living things, even plants have souls and some souls are more developed, or developed as fur is to feathers to hair, which even plants have been known to have... least I forget scales.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Unapologetic Specisist
Some animals ARE better than other animals.
Cheetah is a better sprinter than man.
Man is a better mass killer than any other vertebrate.
Human rights and morality are inventions of human intelligence.
Morality is predicated on survival -- personal, filial, and cultural.
We recognize human rights because we're family.
Gaia Vindice
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
I Don't Care.
I don't care what you believe. It's not my business. If it makes you happy, that's good enough for me.
NOW can we go have a beer and talk about baseball?
The fact that you ,DO
The fact that you ,DO BELIEVE makes you different from any other animal species.
yes ???
Only if we're talking about
Only if we're talking about how great the Red Sox are!!!!
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
Any other animal could give
Any other animal could give a s-it less about the RED SOCKS.
yes ???
I liked the article raised some good questions.
It also pointed out that fact that many people are true believers on the atheist side of things. A true believers being someone who can not accept any challenge to their belief system, without well anger, or indignation, and also because of their belief think that they are smarter than everyone else.
A true believer does not
A true believer does not gain insight from their own belief system .They are mearly reflecting or supposed to reflect God's belief system. I'm not angry with you & neither is God..God provides the way to escape the inevitable human frailty.
yes ???
You are not refuting atheism...
Hitchens may be an angry type... and rightly so, religion and its damaging brainwash is no longer to be tolerated in the 21st century.
As for Dawkins, he truly is the soft-spoken, contemplative and aloof genius type, the fact that you group him up with hitchens is puzzling.
Even if what you say had any truth though, your observations would still be besides the point.
If you want to argue that god exists, feel free - you have not done so in your post and I do not believe you can. Whether Hitchens is angry or Dawkins tiresome, however, is of no consequence to our lives or the truth value of their arguments. Your failure to see this is revealing.
http://actiontrigger.no-ip.org/
My point
was not to refute atheism, and neither was Charlotte Allen's (I didn't write this). I posted this to let atheists know their believer bashing is not helping their cause, and if they want to be taken more seriously and be better accepted by society, they need to find more positive ways of presenting themselves and their ideas.
why
are you putting atheists in a box together. Atheists are individuals as are you. Collectivists like to box people into groups and play them against one another for their own benefit. We should all be careful not to fall into that trap.
Fair enough
But I think it would benefit the atheist movement if the moderates spoke out against the extremists who claim "religion is a mental illness" and "raising one's children in a religion is a form of child abuse," just like it benefits the moderate Christians and Islamists to speak out against the words and acts of their extremists.
Well said.
and I appreciate this thread Ruth, thank you. Regardless of anyones position, it provides a balance for discussion. Gotta have both sides to the coin : )
So, are you part of the solution or part of the problem?
From the title of your thread, I'm not sure I need to ask that question.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
That's easy
I'm part of the solution.
Sure, if our problem is not enough collectivist and divisive
threads.
Good job.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
Read the posts
With few exceptions, the people posting here are discussing things calmly and coming to agreements.
As you know, Ron Paul attracted a wide range of supporters with a myriad of ideas and opinions. If we are to work together, we need to work out our differences as well as celebrate our similarities.
It seems to me you think censorship is a better idea. If you find this thread to be so offensive it shouldn't be talked about, then why are you here bumping it? Myself, I ignore the threads I don't approve of completely so they'll go away.