Do Dawkins and Dennett Incite to Hatred?

_{Barry Arrington
December 11, 2007

Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Philosophy
Religion}

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

I live in Arvada, Colorado, and for many years I attended the church associated with the YWAM shooting on Sunday. Earlier this year I befriended two of the young men going through the training program there, one from New Zealand and the other from England. I am numb with sorrow, and my prayers go up for the families of the victims.

The media is reporting that Matthew Murray posted the following on the web: “I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. …God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

Look at the last part of that quote closely. One wonders if Murray has been reading Dawkins or Dennett. By blaming the world’s ills on religious people do Dawkins and Dennett incite to hatred and make it more likely that tragedies of this sort can occur? I don’t know, but it is an interesting question.

Addition:

Surprisingly, several commenters have suggested that unless I can prove a direct causal relationship I should be quiet. Stuart Harris as much as says that unless I can show that Murray read an atheist book last Saturday and started killing people on Sunday then I should “shut the hell up.” Mr. Harris, let me clue you in. Human motivation is rarely simple, linear and direct. The standard you set is patently unreasonable. A multitude of variables contribute to human actions, and one of those variables is what I would call the “intellectual climate” of the culture. Are Dawkins and his ilk guilty of contributing to a climate of hatred (or at least animosity) against religious people generally and Christians in particular? Hitchens calls religion a “poison.” Isn’t it axiomatic that poison is bad and should be eradicated?

Mr. Harris, the killer said that Christians are to blame for most of the problems in the world. One wonders where he got that notion. I think it is a fair question to ask whether Darkins, Dennett and Hitchens have gone too far with their inflammatory rhetoric. You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, but thinking people ask questions. Are Dawkins, Dennett or Hitchens directly responsible for Sunday’s murders? Obviously not. At the end of the day, my inquiry is not so much about “responsibility” as “irresponsibility.” Have the vituperative atheists been irresponsible in contributing to an intellectual climate that condones animosity toward religious people? It’s a fair question.

Comments

It baffles me how Dawkins seems so hell-bent on this mission of his to show the world that their lives are meaningless, as if he thinks he's doing them a favor.Berceuse_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Stephenb,
"IT IS A GOOD THING WHEN MY ADVERSARY DIES! There is simply no other way to interpret his message. His contention is that Christians must be stopped—-period."
HAHAHAHHAHAHA! (laughing with you) Your right, B. These people display no sense of proportionality.Frost122585_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Weren't the Nazis publishing anti-Jew propaganda, forming the “intellectual climate” that led to such horrific injustice against the Jews, including their mass murder?mike1962_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

So, I will venture a framing of the question: How do we differentiate between a “call to arms” (metaphor) and an “incitement to violence?” The difference is reflected in the two corresponding motives, each of which has its own battle cry: 1) “We must change the law and the culture,” or 2) “We must stop these people at all costs.” As a pro-life advocate, I choose method #1. I often challenge my listeners to get involved by taking after legislators and illuminating minds. My passion is real, but my methods are moderate (I hope). I would do a great many things to eliminate the scourge of abortion, but I would not take a life, nor, would I celebrate an abortionists’ death. Never do I argue that the means justifies the ends, even when I am absolutely sure that I am absolutely right. Does that make me a saint? Of course not. I am simply trying to temper my outrage with a sense of responsible social action. It is my moral obligation to consider the possible repercussions of what I say. Does Christopher Hitchens take that tack? I don’t think so. When Jerry Falwell died, he not only celebrated the event, he said. “If there is a hell, Falwell deserves to be there.” In fact, it was clear that he hoped Falwell would be there. Nice! The message is clear: IT IS A GOOD THING WHEN MY ADVERSARY DIES! There is simply no other way to interpret his message. His contention is that Christians must be stopped----period. From what I gather, he doesn’t scruple over the potential impact of his words on troubled minds; he exhibits no sense of proportionality. It is not the world view that offends; it is the radicalization of a world view. To be an militant atheist is to smear your Christian adversary in a militant way----to equate Christian evangelization with Islamic terrorism--- to mischaracterize the art of persuasion as a “hate crime”---to treat the marginal fundamentalist as representative of the whole-----anything to create an environment of hostility. Their favorite technique is to fill the young with rage by telling them that Christians promote sexual repression and seek to establish an oppressive theocracy and are, therefore, a clear and present danger to the social order. In other words, they lie. To sum up: #1 to persuade is to appeal to noble motives. #2 to instigate is to appeal to base motives. Insofar as militant atheists are engaging in the latter, I agree with .Barry AStephenB_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

I happen to live in "proximity" to both Colorado events (living in CS and having two children who have just visited YWAM sites/events in the last two months) and thank BarryA for trying to attach meaning to such a "senseless" tragedy. Some have complained that we should not comment. The chief complaint seems to be that we will be unable to get it "right". To what extent did anti-Christian wonks and their diatribes of the last five years affect Murray? People say we can not know. On the other hand, that is not what BarryA asked. He brought up a question that needs to be addressed simply because of the "possibility" that certain answers to it lead to the ramifications that we witnessed here in Colorado. We do not do well in simply offering a casual opinion about what can or cannot be known. We would do well to form an argument, or to do a little research if a cogent argument is not forthcoming. Sometimes, though, we would do well to simply answer the question. I quote-mine Dawkins: those who reject his evolutionary materialism are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.” I picked this one for two reasons: first, it was easy to copy and paste from a previous post, and second, Dawkins has never backed off of it. In fact, he goes further. I recall Dennett and his ideas about quarantining those who would train their children according to their religious beliefs (I believe that was Dennett, at any rate). This is obvious. OF COURSE these public voices incite hatred. What they are implying is that those "in the know" are to stop the wicked and quarantine the disease. How do I know this? Because EVERYBODY knows that the wicked ARE TO BE stopped and the only thing WORTH quarantine IS disease! I suppose a strict materialist might counter by saying that this is not a matter of hatred at all, merely rational dispatch. That type of language sounds, well, it sounds like the rationale of a few recent murderers. . . or the Nazis, or the eugenicist, or the . . . We are often insulated from the effects of being hated and the utterly visceral, yet utterly real, response we feel when we find ourselves in that position. However, our ability to insulate doesn't mean that the hatred doesn't grow and that such growth isn't incited. Mr. Dawkins, what do you suggest we do with the wicked? How would the quarantine look, Mr Dennett? It may be easy to deny that what we are talking about is good old fashioned hatred when it comes from a smiling old professor with goofy ideas, but try to deny the hatred when you put all the ideas together and combine it with the strange, somewhat surreal, feelings of knowing that you just sent your son to the mall one mile and one half hour from the tragedy at New Life Church. Again, I am not arguing the case that Murray read Dawkins latest book, (in which case I would assume that he would have simply shot himself) then acted on it. I am answering the question because now is as good a time as any to answer it. Why wait 'til we see Dawkins on NOVA when everything is so "nice"? It may be comforting, or at least insulating, to mentally march out "the medical model", sociological snippets, even historical and biographical criticisms of the organizations and people involved, "apparently the security guard spoke a profanity years before in Minnesota" (I read that in the paper -- wow!). It frames the story as it were. What BarryA is getting at, IMO, is that we should NOT frame it to set it at a distance, but to let it pierce us -- not just our hearts which are so easily bruised and broken, but our minds which seem all too often ready to rationalize, compartmentalize, and get nowhere . . . Ok, I'm done.Tim_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, easy now, lets reinvestigate the intelligentsia's false dichotomy-
"However, we should also recognize that in recent years, secularists have been deeply — and even on a routine and often celebrated basis — involved in a rhetoric of incivility bordering on hatred of Christians that has materially helped polarize and poison the atmosphere in contemporary Western Culture."
The issue that I would like to bring to light is the concept of generality or the fallacy by generality. What is it about the west and Christianity that dwells up so much hatred? Most often people get annoyed by those who have more than them, but to hate is another matter. And it is well known that we will blame others for our problems rather than confessing to what we can do to better ourselves. It is part of the human condition to look at ourselves last. Nonetheless, why hate the Christian west so much as to want to kill them? The great intellectuals have weighed in and they are ambitiously spiteful in their critiques. The atheist down trodden are right. The religious rich are wrong-- even worse evil. But what about the dichotomy between the views of the common atheist man and those of Jesus? We are talking about religion and man here, aren’t we? To read the bible is to witness Christianity in its purest form. And I remind you that no religion on earth defends the notion of peace, hope and pacifism as much as the Christian text does. To claim as Dawkins does that the essence of Christianity is to hate people unlike yourself is to misrepresent its point. Dawkins confuses the battles of men with the message of the bible. Every mind the on earth thinks that he/she/it is right. No one walks around on the planet daily shouldering the conclusion that they don’t know anything, or that everyone's views are entirely equal to theirs. This is not about religion this is the fact of the human condition. Even Gandhi demonstrated against the evils of war- even though his political intervention lead to millions of deaths. Christ died on the cross to transcend the physical world or to right the conflicts brewed from “relative” world views. His only allegiance was to the truth- his truth - not to the truth of this world or the human mind but to the truth that underwrites all good and all evil. To Christ the intellectual and political squabbles of the mere malleable minds of men was not worth killing over- it wasn't even worth dieing for - No, Christ died for people to realize that the ultimate faulty bias of man is that which drives his hatred - The one that pins one philosophical or theological perspective against another in hopes of a war- Dawkins may in fact wish be a prophet for the atheistic martyrs of intellectual left- But not all martyrs see divinity. In fact I congratulate you Dawkins, and Dennett. You have succeeded once again in crucifying and subverting the meaning of religion in the same breath that you subvert science. I however will not kill you for it as was “generally” the case in atheistic communist Russia- Nor, will I even try to muzzle your illogical hatred. In fact I welcome your blatant narcissistic dissent because without it we would have no teaching materials. why am i getting "slow down" when i havent posted in 48 hours?Frost122585_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

A better question would be: why, consistent with the atheistic/materialistic worldview, would this action be meaningfully wrong?geoffrobinson_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

The *reasoning* that lay in the minds of individuals who so willfully take lives, will forever rest in the murkiest depths of their minds. The *reasons*, though, they extoll for undertaking the crimes are usually something tangible to them, be it racially motivated, retribution or agenda driven. This doesn't make it right, but for them it is corporeal. This latest one seems to have the hallmarks of this. EvolutionISM, as Patrick correctly acknowledges, may be a basis of this particular incident as the shooter needed to hold to a particular *reason* to advance his *reasoning*. It is, also, very early to make a final call on the ultimate motivation in this particularly sad incident. Coming, though, from a non-U.S. geographical standpoint, our daily serving of what-is-happening-in-the-US through the different media is always Hollywood, Iraq-war-stories and massacres/multiple shootings. I know that 'the right to bear arms' is written into the heart of many American children at birth, but isn't it time to reconsider why you require so many accessible handguns or military-style longarms in a non-threatened part of the world? We learnt, in Australia, from the Port Arthur Massacre - the gunman claimed the lives of 35 people and wounded 37 others - about the too-readily accessible legal firemarm. We also learnt that stringent gun control continues to save lives. It doesn't stop killing, but certainly halts massacres that have unfortunately become a saddening sleight on the greatness that is the U.S. Since Port Arthur, deaths from legal firearms has continued to plummet. To date, there have been no massacres since Port Arthur in Australia and no doubt firearm control has been an influential reason. The motivation to kill is still firmly entrenched in the psyche of want-to-be-murderers, but the tools are left out of reach so the devistation that they can wreak is greatly diffused. It is difficult to change the reasons and reasoning of wanna-be killers but certainly, as a nation, you could be much more effective in limiting the harm done.AussieID_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

All: We do need to be calm and sympathetic, and to be willing to wait on evidence before drawing firm conclusions. However, we should also recognise that in recent years, secularists have been deeply -- and even on a routine and often celebrated basis -- involved in a rhetoric of incivility bordering on hatred of Christains that has materially helped polarise and poison the atmosphere in contemporary Western Culture. For instance, it is probably just a little ironic to note:
1] This very past w/end, we saw the global opening of the US$180mn Golden Compass movie, based on the works of Mr Pullman, who according to at least one reviewer, has declared in critique of C S Lewis, that his Chronicles of Narnia were written in defense of "a religion whose main creed seemed to be to despise and hate people unlike yourself." [Surely, Mr Pullman should know the substance of the Sermon on the Mount and its most important quote, from Matt 7:12? What of Gal 3:28? And, what is so hard to understand in the words "For God so loved the WORLD . . ." in Jn 3:16? What is his rhetoric telling us, then?] 2] In the underlying His Dark Materials trilogy, Christianity is EXPLICITLY and repeatedly made into a fount of unmitigated evil, and God is made into a fraud and a farce. Some very troubling attitudes and behaviours are encouraged -- lending further telling force to the observation made by Christian critics of Western Culture ever since Paul [Cf Rom 1:19 ff], that turning one's back on God in resentful ingratitude is a prelude to morally chaotic behaviour. Why is Hollywood spending US$ 180 mn to promote the works of a man who does that sort of thing? 3] Dawkins, of course [and as Trib 7 reminds us in that linked article, is notorious for insisting that those who reject his evolutionary materialism are "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." 4] As Trib7 pointed out, The immediate imagery that came to Dawkins' mind when he looked at worship in the very church where the murders happened, is a comparison to "a Nuremberg Rally of which Goebbels might have been proud." 5] As a telling parallel, in Vernon, CT, the Connecticut Valley Atheists put up a 3-sided holidays sign in Central Park, showing the pre-9/11 WTC towers with the sun shining through the middle -- the light makes a CROSS -- and with the slogan: "Imagine no religion." CVA spokesman Denis Hines is reported as saying that "Use of the image is meant to say the Twin Towers would still be standing were it not for religion." 6] More broadly, there is a longstanding pattern among opinion leaders and shapers, all the way up to the professoriat, of reciting long litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom in a context that lacks the balance that recognises the good that many, many Christians have done -- especially in the development of modern liberty. (Of course,there is a tellingly widespread lack of recognition that many of the sins of Christendom that are decried are long-standing human problems, and indeed, it was often Christians who -- motivated by Gospel Ethics -- were the first or among the first to stand up to them and work towards reformation. The abolition of slavery is a capital case in point; cf. here the life story of William Wilberforce and Thomas Buxton.) 7] Indeed, CO is the very state where in the Columbine high school attacks, Christianity was a focus for murderous hatred. It is not at all surprising to see in the AP reports, that this murderer dressed in a manner reminiscent of the earlier attackers.
In short, there is a serious need to look at the sort of climate of feelings that is being cultivated in the US [and elsewhere], and coming strongly from the secularist elites. This one is a wake-up call. For, there is such a thing as the saying that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

the killer said that Christians are to blame for most of the problems in the world. One wonders where he got that notion. I think it is a fair question to ask whether Darkins, Dennett and Hitchens have gone too far with their inflammatory rhetoric.
It is also, then a fair question to ask if his being dropped from the Youth With a Mission program led to an irrational feeling of rejection that manifested itself as a hatred for those that he felt abandoned him. I am not saying that is what happened, but it is an interesting question. As you rightly point out "[h]uman motivation is rarely simple, linear and direct."specs_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

StuartHarris,
Nothing personal, but unless you have very convincing evidence that this particular killer claimed he was directly acting on the writings of Dennett and Dawkins, you should just shut the hell up.
You can disagree with UD writers aplenty, but you need to find other ways to express your sentiments in this instance. Considering the positive contributions you've made in the past to UD I'll let this one slide.Patrick_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

One thing to keep in mind: Some people here are arguing that this case shouldn't be viewed as having anything to do with atheism, because clearly the killer was deranged. I'm sorry, but, that doesn't fly. Part of the New Atheist argument is that, even if many or even most religious people are personally civil, religion and faith acts as an enabler for the crazier, more violent people. The OP made it clear that the question isn't whether any particular atheist is personally responsible for these and other killing sprees - Barry asked questions about contributions to a social climate. And I'd personally argue that, considering the question of what religious (particularly Christian) cultures promote and directly/indirectly encourage has been a battleground for the atheists, asking what atheism - and in particular, New Atheism and the attitudes some of its most vocal and visible leadership particularly encourages - promotes in turn is not only valid, but important. And I also reject the implication that it's unChristian or unfair to ask or entertain the possibility that some parts of modern atheism can set the groundwork for some bad things. Writing every shooting or attempted shooting off as 'just the act of someone who is deranged' without questioning what could be contributing to the events is irresponsible.nullasalus_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

The whole point is that he was deranged and not thinking. He's not like someone like Stalin or Mao or Osama. They need a convincing nihilistic ideology to get people to follow and carry out atrocities. A deranged person is not dependent on an ideology and will just find another excuse to kill if the original reason doesn't work.ari-freedom_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Specs (19) said: "Are you willing to accept the proposition that perhaps, given the background, that the religious community, for all it’s outreach to troubled individuals, may have failed this one?" Absolutely. Many people have been hurt or disappointed by Christians, including me. But the question being asked here is not, "Who hurt this guy's feelings?" The question is, "What ideas influenced, or allowed him to justify, his actions?" If the quotes BarryA provided are true, then this guy thought Christians are the cause of all pain and suffering in the world. Which is exactly what some prominent atheists are publicly espousing. Couple that idea with the belief that humans have no intrinsic value but are merely the accidental by-product of nature, and you have a recipe for atrocity. The difference between Matthew Murray and someone like Hitchens, is that, unfortunately, Matthew is deranged enough to act consistenly with his beliefs, while, thankfully, Hitchens is not.Clumsy Brute_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

StuartHarris wrote: "That’s right, you don’t know — so don’t ask the question." How is it that someone is supposed to find the answer to a question if they don't ask it? Asking WHETHER the shooter might have been motivated by atheist propaganda need not imply that the shooter, in fact, WAS motivated by atheist propaganda. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It's an interesting question.TRoutMac_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

"Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. This would apply to less atheists that I know than to other groups I know. And I also know atheists who don't agree with Dawkins and these other 'atheist leaders'. Atheists don't follow any clergy. But more to the point, this man was clearly deranged. Blaming atheists seems a little left field. Our thoughts should be with the victims and their families.Corey_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

What about the Virginia Tech killings? Should we blame Dawkins and Dennett there too? But Cho was a Christian so can't do that. He was some screwed up loner who hated rich kis. There are probably hundreds of these events that take place over the years around the world and most of the time it can be placed at the foot of some dysfunctional individual(s). I don't think it is any good pointing at these events and if one wants to attack atheism, it has to go where more harm is being done, not some occasional odd ball killing people. The only good thing is that the church has an armed guard who could shoot.jerry_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Tribune, I would note that you didn't really answer the question. You seem to want the reader to walk away with the impression that atheism is to blame. But you seem to lack the conviction to commit yourself to this premise. Fair enough. Are you willing to accept the proposition that perhaps, given the background, that the religious community, for all it's outreach to troubled individuals, may have failed this one?specs_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

StuartHarris - That's good, let out the anger. I'll get a couch. When you are all fnished, you can reasonable establish the proper number of hours to elapse before the forum can again return to "dancing around in the blood."selectedpete_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

BarryA, "I don’t know, but it is an interesting question." That's right, you don't know -- so don't ask the question. Nothing personal, but unless you have very convincing evidence that this particular killer claimed he was directly acting on the writings of Dennett and Dawkins, you should just shut the hell up. Dancing around in the blood of victims only 48 hours after they're dead in order to make a rhetorical point is kind of sick. You're not doing anybody any good.StuartHarris_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Are you saying that Dawkins is to blame for Murray’s actions because he visited Colorado Springs several years ago? What I'm saying is that atheism is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects atheism from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful.tribune7_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

I do not think it is wise to blame Dawkins for some crazy kook. On the other hand, if there is a war between the United Atheist Alliance and the Allied Atheist Alliance and they murder the one wise one that questions them...yes I would hold Dawkins responsible for this state of affairs.ari-freedom_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

tribune7, I am not exactly sure what your point is? Are you saying that Dawkins is to blame for Murray's actions because he visited Colorado Springs several years ago? That really stretches the limits of credulity. Although as long as we are engaging in credulous speculation, shouldn't we note that Colorado Springs is home to Focus on the Family and wonder if perhaps there was more that could have been done to help the Murray family deal with their troubled son?specs_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

I have to disagree with JWarner in #5 that these posts are a good idea (no offence to BarryA). We don't know enough yet, to have any defensible position on what happened! We can speculate on motivations ad nauseum, but until there's some real evidence we can't jump to any conclusions regardless of how it might fit with our world view. Back to the science, please!p.noyola_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Another point to ponder: Let's say we some powerful organizations calling themselves Christian make documentaries, publish books in which atheism is called "the root of all evil," a virus etc. and someone picks up a gun, enters a meeting of atheists and kills several. Would Christianity be blamed? Do you really need a hint as to what the answer would be? It should also be noted that Christian groups do make documentaries, publish books, preach sermons condemning atheism, yet no violence has been reported because of this.tribune7_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

I really struggle with the rush to blame them for every tragedy. They aren't blamed for every tragedy. But this is interesting: Dawkins visits Colorado Springs to discuss the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States. He visits the New Life Church, an $18 million worship centre where Pastor Ted Haggard at the time presided over a 14,000 strong congregation . . . Dawkins interviews Haggard and begins by likening the worship experience to a Nuremberg Rally of which Goebbels might have been proud . . .tribune7_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

I should note that my arguments above are not made necessarily to blame atheists for this recent shooting, but BarryA's original question here is quite relevant in this debate because the premier atheists (those who are the apparent spokes persons for that worldview) are constantly bringing up the supposed connection between religion and terrible acts of humanity. The real question for me becomes: Can I attribute this act to the teachings of Christ and his followers? Can I attribute it to the teachings of Mohammed and his followers? That of Nietzsche? I have to ask myself: WWSD? - What would Stalin do? [That last one should be a bumper sticker I think]selectedpete_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Arguing that atheism has no creed is very close to the current debate over tolerance. Those who argue heatedly for tolerance are typically doing so in a self-refuting fashion. ie: That's intolerant! (as if they have no stance whatever in the matter). Atheists often enjoy the comfort of falling back on the false notion that they are "creedless" or neutral, but will readily co-opt Judeo-Christian concepts of good and evil when distinguishing between say, those who are "just nasty" or those who are "very nice." Evolution and Abiogenesis fall neatly into this discussion, because, as Dawkins so famously put it - these two beliefs made it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. Back then, it was religion that scoffed and ridiculed (recall Huxley and Wilberforce exchange on ape descent). Now - it is that sacred priesthood of atheistic evolutionists that have turned the tables and will not allow open discussion.selectedpete_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

I am not an atheist, but I really struggle with the rush to blame them for every tragedy. So let me pose another interesting question. Murray had been in the Youth With a Mission program and appears to come from a good Christian family (he was homeschooled and his brother apparently attends Oral Roberts University). Rather than blaming atheists should consider that perhaps the Christian community needs to figure out more effective ways to minister to the needs of mentally ill individuals?specs_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

know it is popular to put forward evolution as a creed but it is really only a statement of how the world seems to operate; it does not propose any moral judgements. (I know, I know, many people feel that is the problem but that’s a different problem.)
Ruse makes the distinction between the Theory of Evolution and its implications, Evolutionism, which he believes to be a religion. So I would think the real thing under discussion here is Evolutionism.Patrick_{December 11, 2007
December
12
Dec
11
11
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply