And who are your three favorite atheists?

_{William Dembski

September 13, 2006

Culture}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The latest Newsweek gives a sympathetic portrait of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The article closes with the following sentence:

If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek.

Comments

Nate Hentoff is about the only public one I like. I can respect an honest skeptic, but most of the public, self-proclaimed "atheists" don't fall into that category. They would better be described as "God-haters" rather than skeptics or doubters since they have clearly not just made up their minds but have imposed a moral value on their belief.tribune7_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

"Can you name a single contemporary atheist who has done as much evil as the theists IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve mentioned above?" How would you define evil ? I think you are simply using a self serving defintion of evil to make your point. And is it really surprising that false religion results in evil ? Duh ! And lets not forget of course the simple reality that "theists" in the geneic sense you use greatly outnumber atheists, so you would expect more of them regardless. But hey, your an atheist, so I wouldn't expect you to be moral :Pjwrennie_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening.
There is no "competition between science and religion". There is a competition between a particular and self-serving definition/understanding of science (naturalism) and genuine Biblical Christianity. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2208#scienceMats_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

JAD: "Since when have Darwinians a conscience? I have never known one that did myself. Some of the nastiest, most unforgiving, most arrogant and intractable ideologues I have ever known were Darwinians through and through. Does anyone really believe that Richard Dawkins has a conscience? I sure donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t." Really? When I think of nasty, unforgiving, arrogant and intractable ideologues, people like Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, Ayatollah Khomeini, those (Christian) creeps who protest at the funerals of soldiers, those hordes of creeps who drill holes into helpless people, the entire government of Iran and a host of others like them come to mind and every single one of them is a theist and none of them is a Darwinist. Can you name a single contemporary atheist who has done as much evil as the theists I've mentioned above? Would you like to make a bet that I can't name 100 truly nasty, unforgiving, arrogant and intractable theistic idologues for every atheist you can name that meets the same description? If you're willing to bet real money, I'll let you scour history for nasty atheists and I'll restrict myself to naming living theistic monsters.Houdin_{September 14, 2006
September
09
Sep
14
14
2006
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

"Atheists are incapable of morality? Oh, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sorry. For a moment I thought this was the 21st century. " Actually this is a misunderstanding. The problem is not that atheists cannot be moral, it is more that the concept of moral reasoning is incoherent with their worldview. Most atheists are simply inconsistent and rather than accept the moral nihilism inherent to their metaphysical naturalism, they opt to abandon their metaphysical naturalism on this point as it suits them too.jwrennie_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

1. My ex-girlfriend 2. The professor who taught me Attic Greek, Hebrew Scriptures, and Ancient Greek Religion 3. Probably one of my ex-Mormon turned atheist friendsobrienr_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Dr. Davison says: "'It' is right now, the present situation. Does that help? What did you think 'It' meant or would you rather not say?" I had no idea. That's why I asked. I still don't. That's OK.BarryA_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

jpark320: the expression "being able to look at myself in the mirror" is not really about doing something to benefit onesself in a selfish way. In fact it is the opposite: it is a graphic representation of the fact that when we do evil, we have a built-in sensory capacity which causes us to judge ourselves as worthy of disdain in the wake of such acts. This self-judgement is what Christ demanded when he said, well, when he said many things, but here I was thinking of the "Behold not the mote..." We are forced to focus our spiritual attention not upon the deeds of others but upon our own selves in judgement. And no, I wouldn't want to get into a Calvinism debate...been there, done that, ran screaming from the room in despair!tinabrewer_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Atheists are incapable of morality? Oh, I'm sorry. For a moment I thought this was the 21st century.Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

"It" is right now, the present situation. Does that help? What did you think "It" meant or would you rather not say? "It" is raining outside. Get it? I sure hope so. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

I agree w/ you BenZ. Not only b/c not seeking God's favor and your own instead is pretty much synonymous with sin, but to be so bold in your selfishness. I guess they help others only b/c they want to feel good themselves. @ tinabrewer: I agree with you that this same Creator uses conscious to draw people to Him and for believer's as a warning system of sorts. And Calvinism debate aside ie total depravity, don't you think in the context of the quote 1) The deliberate refusal to seek God's favor for one's own 2) Doing good deeds for purely one's own benefit ie "took be able to look themselves in the mirror" is not the type of "good conscious" you are talking about? Seems like the total opposite.jpark320_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

BarryA, I must confess that I haven't read Baudolino. And I wasn't even thinking of his novels when I mentioned him; I was thinking of his conversation with Cardinal Martini.Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

"Since when have Darwinians a conscience?" As noted, they all do, it is part of the basic make up of human beings. It falls under the idea of Natural Law. If you are interested (and this doesn't violate blog rules in regard to advertising), I did an episode on Natural Law on the podcast I host The Sci Phi Show. You can find it at http://thesciphishow.com/?p=56 and an interview with Dean Donald McConnel of Trinity Law Colledge on the idea at http://thesciphishow.com/?p=58 Jasonjwrennie_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Carlos, I can see how Eco could be on your list after Ã¢â‚¬Å“Name of the Rose.Ã¢â‚¬Â But how could he stay on you list after the last 1/3 of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Baudolino?Ã¢â‚¬ÂBarryA_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Dr. Davison, what exactly is the antecedent to Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â in 5? You say this frequently. Is it always the same Ã¢â‚¬Å“it?Ã¢â‚¬Â Just curious.BarryA_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Since when have Darwinians a conscience? I have never known one that did myself. Some of the nastiest, most unforgiving, most arrogant and intractable ideologues I have ever known were Darwinians through and through. Does anyone really believe that Richard Dawkins has a conscience? I sure don't. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Billy Joel, John Carmack, Richard Dawkins, in that order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack Phil PPhilVaz_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Totally off topic . . . interesting take on 2001 as a film exploring the implications of ID. http://www.2001principle.net/2003.htm Very interesting read. Maybe a thread could be started on this?late_model_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

BenZ: I couldn't disagree with you more forcefully. People who don't believe in a creator were created by the same creator as those who do believe, and they are therefore similarly equipped. To me, the 'being able to look oneself in the mirror' is the essential component of an active spiritual life, and is often more finely developed in non-believers than if religious people, whose essential motivations can run the gamut from fear to a desire for social acceptance all the way up to genuine conviction. It is called a conscience. You ask "what if that feeling is removed?" as if someone could reach in and against our will "remove" our conscience. I don't think it works that way. We kill our own consciences through a long, long series of erroneous choices, until eventually this burden becomes so large that we cannot hear our conscience clearly. But this is never an arbitrary thing, and always a development from out of the free will.tinabrewer_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God." Albert Einstein." That was over 50 years ago. It is much worse now as the Darwinians lash out blindly in their death throes. Don't pay them any attention as they are finished. I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror" That sounds like the worst reason just to do good. I do just enough so I can look at myself in the mirror, or just because if I didn't I couldn't. What if that feeing is removed?Ben Z_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

My favorite atheists are the dead ones. Heh heh. Just kidding.mike1962_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Richard Rorty, Umberto Eco, and Slavoj Zizek. I particulary recommend Zizek's short essay, "Defenders of the FaithThe End of Belief is that he thinks that Buddhism is entirely consistent with science. So "the conflict between religion and science" is slightly misplaced, if Buddhism is a religion.Carlos_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Me, myself, and I. I kill me sometimes! :lol:DaveScot_{September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply