The Problem with Atheism by Sam Harris

by nvrgnbk 60 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  YoursChelbie

  ...over the centuries the believers have been in the majority, in power, and have waged wars and inquisitions against non-believers.

  I've nothing against atheists, however, there is faulty logic here that you are using, Gopher. You often seem to use these types of comments to support/ justify/back up your pro-atheist choice.

  No one denies that SOME believers have done bad things, but this logic doesn't make sense. It's just like saying "In the eighteenth century, white European settlers were in the majority in power and kept colored people as slaves, killing those who would leave their masters." The facts are that numerically right now most white people of European origin in the USA don't keep slaves. Do they all deserve to be stereotyped by what happened in the past? No, not any more than a blanket condemnation of believers as a group is warranted based on what atrocities have been done by some in the past.

  I admire believers (and non-believers) who have used their belief as a motivating factor for the good of others: Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Gandhi etc.

  YC
• 

  stillajwexelder

  if only. IF ONLY
• 

  erynw

  Here's my dilema:

  When looking at a virus, it's hard not to marvel at it's complexity. A virus isn't considered a living thing because it can not reproduce on its own.

  The only function of a virus is to reproduce, even at the expense of killing themselves by killing the host.

  So, either it was created or evolved into what it is.

  If it was created, why would a god create something that makes us sick or kills us?

  If it evolved, that means that complexity is part of the evolutionary process.

  So, I'm inclined to believe that viruses were created, and they evolved into the illness producing, killing machine that they are today.

  I don't know which is correct. I do know that if god created all of this, he left the building and is no longer interested in his little science experiment.
• 

  darkuncle29

  So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

  I really like this idea, of not chosing to be the oposite polarity of 'religious' beliefs. It seems to me very Art-of-War.

  He spoke alot about meditation, and using our own minds to explore consciousness, and I like how he pointed out that we each need to build our own 'telescopes' if we want to explore that area.
• 

  5go

  The problem with calling ourselves "Christian" is that every atheist person thinks he has a knockdown argument against Christianity

  I find that Christians that argue with atheist, rather than following the words of their savior Jesus Christ relayed thru words in the bible. (which he said knock the dust off your feat and move on when you meet people you think to be unresonable) Which they profess to follow and obey to the letter but never do when it suits them too. The greatest knock out argument against Christians.

  Christians aren't Christian the are nihilist.

  Most Christians have the belief that without God or the bible objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other without God's input into the ethical code.

  Therefore without God's input there can be no reason for life or ethics. Hence the reason so many Christian do evil things like crusades inquisitions, witchburning, etc, without input from God.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Christians aren't Christian the are nihilist.

  That's odd, since most would recognize nihilist ideology as having its source in the Atheist philosphy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
• 

  Gopher

  ...over the centuries the believers have been in the majority, in power, and have waged wars and inquisitions against non-believers.

  I've nothing against atheists, however, there is faulty logic here that you are using, Gopher. You often seem to use these types of comments to support/ justify/back up your pro-atheist choice.

  No one denies that SOME believers have done bad things, but this logic doesn't make sense.

  YC -- you used a selective quote. I do not choose atheism just because some religious people have been bad actors in the past.

  My point in this thread is that God-believers have historically been in the majority, and the major religions have had a history of using force, even violence to maintain their influence by whatever means.

  Now (in early 21st-century America) there is a small swell of literature and discussion favoring the atheist viewpoint, but the believers are still far in the majority. If religious believers have the truth, they shouldn't worry about a minority dissenting viewpoint -- unless they're afraid of losing hold over their believers.

  So why exactly are believers crying "foul" over a few books and philosophers challenging their sacred notions? Why do they call outspoken atheists "militant" and say that they should just go away? It seems out-of-proportion to the current challenge atheists present, just as past religious inquisitions and persecutions were also based on fear and out-of-line.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Without a grounding in the Absolute the atheists create a relative world where truth is in the eye of the perceiver.

  Atheists do not "create" such a world. That world already exists and has always existed, from at least the time of recorded history. Nowhere is that more aptly demonstrated then by listening to the expressed perceptions of various religious believers who hold their particular perception to be Absolute Truth!

  Cog
• 

  Gopher

  That's odd, since most would recognize nihilist ideology as having its source in the Atheist philosphy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

  No, nihilism doesn't have its source in Nietzsche, although he did call Christians nihilists. Here's what Wikipedia said in its nihilism entry:

  Nihilism is often associated with the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, whose views accorded with certain aspects of one reading of the position; the modern definition, however, does not apply to him. [6] For while Nietzsche could be accurately categorized as a nihilist in the descriptive sense, he never advocated nihilism as a practical mode of living and was typically quite critical of nihilism as he construed it. [7] [6] His later work displays a preoccupation with nihilism. Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. He hints that nihilism can become a false belief, when it leads individuals to discard any hope of meaning in the world and thus to invent some compensatory alternate measure of significance. Nietzsche used the phrase 'Christians and other nihilists', which is in line with his low estimation of Christianity in general.

  Again, atheism is more of a skepticism about the existence of a god to believe in. Nihilism says life has no meaning or value, rejects all authority and even ethics. I know many atheists who do not subscribe to these nihilistic views.
• 

  Gopher

  In addition to the previous post, I wanted to add - it's true many nihilists are atheist. It's not true that all atheists are nihilist.