Atheism Culture Intelligent Design News

Re Chapel Hill shootings: new atheist Sam Harris says no atheism to see there

Spread the love

Beginning our religion coverage this week with his views here: “Sam Harris responds to the charge that “militant” atheism is responsible for the murder of three Muslim students in North Carolina.” (pod, no tranny)

The story about how an atheism fan shot Muslim students is here.

At first, we were told it was a dispute over parking, but then some of us took a look at the accused’s Facebook page, “Anti-Theism.”

Let’s just say, it wasn’t Parking Haram Central. But we’ll leave it to Craig Hicks’s defense lawyer to make his best case.

Meanwhile, we wonder what Harris would say if the accused had been a militant Christian fundie, with a Facebook Page to match? Readers?

Kid somewhere: Grammy, Grammy O’Leary, does this mean Dr. Harris will stop attacking BioLogos founder Francis Collins for professing to be a Christian while working in science?

Grammy O’Leary: Sure it does! Not only so, but that leprechaun phoned back this afternoon, drunk as a skunk on junk, and said he’d finally tell us where the pot of gold is hidden…

New atheism is one of the world’s true religions of peace—provided you just surrender when they threaten you.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Re Chapel Hill shootings: new atheist Sam Harris says no atheism to see there

  1. 1
    CHartsil says:

    For ID having nothing to do with religion, there sure are a lot of religious posts on this site.

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    CHartsil

    And the most religious people you will ever meet CHartsil is atheists…. Have you ever heard of their version of Creation?

    “In the beginning was Nothing, and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it expand. The expansion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.

    For no particular Reason”for Reason is rarely particular”Time and Chance took a liking to this little, wet, blue rock and decided to stick around to see what adventures they might have. While the pair found the Earth to be intriguing and pretty, they also found it a bit too quiet, too static. They fixed upon an idea to change Everything (just a little) by creating a special Something. Time and Chance roamed the planet, splashing through the oceans and sloshing through the mud, in search of materials. But though they looked Everywhere, there was a missing ingredient that they needed in order to make a Something that could create more of the same Somethings.

    They called to their friend Everything to help. Since Everything had been Everywhere she would no doubt be able to find the missing ingredient. And indeed she did. Hidden away in a small alcove called Somewhere, Everything found what Time and Chance had needed all along: Information. Everything put Information on a piece of ice and rock that happened to be passing by the former planet Pluto and sent it back to her friends on Earth.

    Now that they had Information, Time and Chance were finally able to create a self-replicating Something which they called Life. Once they created Life they found that it not only grew into more Somethings, but began to become Otherthings, too! The Somethings and the Otherthings began to fill the Earth”from the bottom of the oceans to the top of the sky. Their creation, which began as a single Something, eventually became millions and billions of Otherthings.

    Time and Chance, though, where the bickering sort and were constantly feuding over which of them was the most powerful. One day they began to argue over who had been more responsible for creating Life. Everything (who was forever eavesdropping) overheard the spat and suggested that they settle by putting their creative skills to work on a new creature called Man. They all thought is was a splendid plan”for Man was a dull, hairy beast who would indeed provide a suitable challenge”and began to boast about who could create an ability, which they called Consciousness, that would allow Man to be aware of Chance, Time, Everything, and Nothing.

    Chance, always a bit of a dawdler, got off to a slow start, so Time, who never rested, completed the task first. Time rushed around, filling the gooey matter inside each Man’s head with Consciousness. But as he was gloating over his victory he noticed a strange reaction. When Man saw that Everything had been created by Time, Chance, and Nothing, his Consciousness filled with Despair.

    Chance immediately saw a solution to the problem and took the remaining materials she was using to make Consciousness to create Beliefs. When Chance mixed Beliefs into the gray goo, Man stopped filling with Despair and started creating Illusions. These Illusions took various forms”God, Purpose, Meaning”and were almost always effective in preventing Man from filling up with Despair.

    Nothing, who tended to be rather forgetful, remembered her creation and decided to take a look around Everything. When she saw what Time and Chance had done on planet Earth she was mildly amused, but forbade them to fill any more creatures with Consciousness or Beliefs (which is why Man is the only Something that has both). But Nothing took a fancy to Man and told Time and Chance that when each one’s Life ran out, she would take him or her and make them into Nothing too.

    And that is why, children, when Man loses his Life he goes from being a Something created by Time and Chance into becoming like his creator nothing.”

    Joe Carter

  3. 3
    CHartsil says:

    That strawman, though.

  4. 4
    JimFit says:

    Atheists will say that Atheism doesn’t teach morality, it is only the harmless belief that you are a random cosmic mistake that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose, when they say this they basicaly admit that Atheism doesn’t hold any position on morality and enforces subjective morality which of course isn’t morality but opinion.

  5. 5
  6. 6
    Joe says:

    CHarstil- The definition of IC does NOT include “could not have evolved by unguided processes”.

    Irreducible Complexity:

    IC– A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. Page 285 NFL

    Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287

    Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287

    Reference from “No Free Lunch”

  7. 7
    CHartsil says:

    It’s good you think so, because we already know that IC systems can and have evolved. My pinned post in that group was from another user running another ID group who actually defined an IC system as ‘not being produced by evolution’ which makes it circular.

  8. 8
    Coreadrin says:

    @CHartsil – if replaced “not” with “incapable”, and elaborated on the magic-dust “evolution” term with something like “incremental/additive/piecemeal evolutionary changes”, you’d be a lot closer to something IC.

    Also interesting in some extrapolation on your “know”. That’s a pretty immense breakthrough in biology. Have a source for me?

  9. 9
    Diogenes says:

    Further evidence of the evidential double standard applied to atheists. There’s no evidence that Hicks used atheism to rationalize or justify violence, from his own Facebook page. He may have believed atheism, but he never wrote “Because atheism is true, therefore violence is justified.”

    This is in direct contrast to Christian terrorist like Anders Breivik who has been falsely called a “Darwinist terrorist” by Uncommon Descent. In fact, Breivik left a 1,000 page manifesto filled with Bible quotes which were used as rationalization for his violence. I reiterate, Breivik used the truth of the Bible as his justification for violence.

    Breivik copied his Bible quotes and rationalizations from the creationist mag WorldNetDaily. Darwin was not invoked to justify his violence; the Bible was.

    Likewise with other Christian terrorists, Eric Rudolph and the Army of God, Lord’s Resistance Army, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments, etc. they invoke the truth of the Bible to justify mass murder.

    News: we wonder what Harris would say if the accused had been a militant Christian fundie, with a Facebook Page to match? Readers?

    Irrelevant, because the situation you imagine is not analogous to the Hicks case. There is no evidence Hicks was a MILITANT atheist, and MILITANT is the key word here.

    In your analogy, you cite the possibility of a MILITANT Christian fundie having a Facebook page and killing people. But again, Hicks’ facebook page does not show he was a MILITANT atheist.

    Rather, you are employing a double standard in defining MILITANT. A MILITANT Christian has a vast arsenal of weapons and blows up Centennial Park in Atlanta, an abortion clinic, a kids’ summer camp in Norway, etc. A MILITANT Muslim puts on an explosive belt and throws himself into a Bar Mitzvah.

    A MILITANT ATHEIST, by your definition, writes a book disproving the existence of God, and sits behind a desk signing copies.

    MILITANT Christians in the USA have vast arsenals of weapons and say they will use them to kill Obama (e.g. the Christian Patriot Militia, aka CAPM as in “Cap ’em!”) Christian Churches in America tell their followers that everyone must have an assault weapon (e.g. Pastor Steven Anderson) and for “outreach”, many Christian churches now hold raffles to give away assault weapons, knowing that actual weaponry, justifications for violence, and real militance strongly appeals to Christians.

    Your definition of “militance” is, to say the very least, a double standard.

Leave a Reply