Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Ammunition for Atheists

By Jack Huberman, Nation Books. Posted February 8, 2007.


In his new book, The Quotable Atheist, author Jack Huberman has collected powerful quotations against organized religion and belief in God from figures such as Richard Dawkins, Phyllis Diller, Frederick Douglass, Michael Moore, Katha Pollitt, and yes, Jerry Falwell.
1560259698.01.sclzzzzzzz
athesit

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Jack Huberman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from Jack Huberman's new book, The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Nonbelievers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound (Nation Books, 2007).

The world (not just America) is deeply divided.The main fault line is where the tectonic plates of religion and of reason/secularism/ modernity/science/Enlightenment meet and grind against each other,making an absolutely unbearable noise. It's sort of like ... forget it, I can't describe it.

My aim in compiling The Quotable Atheist was to heal our broken planet, essentially by eliminating the religious part. Not with nuclear weapons or lesser acts of mass murder, no -- that's the religious style, nowadays, in certain quarters -- but through argument, persuasion, and most of all (since I know perfectly well that argument is utterly useless against dumb, blind faith, and just wanted to pay it lip service), the steady application of powerfully abrasive ridicule which will slowly but surely erode away the offending continent. I'm serious. Do I really believe this book will convert believers and turn them from the path of self-righteousness to the path of righteousness? Yes. A few. Three, I estimate. Two for sure. But the point is this:

For years, millions of fine, upstanding American atheists and agnostics have watched and stewed as the religious right expanded its influence throughout public life, and as America closed its mind and opened its heart to angels, aliens, ghosts, psychics, Jesus, astrology, Kabbalah, Genesis, Revelation. ... As Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "Unreason is now ascendant in the United States -- in our schools, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world."

Meanwhile, religion continues to be granted far too much respect and too little critical examination in our culture and mainstream media.We need to change the cultural climate so as to make supernatural, occult, and faith-based claptrap feel unwelcome and to make adults ashamed of the blithe surrender of their otherwise sound minds to idiocy.We need climate change. Bullshit levels are rising globally, threatening to submerge intellectually low-lying areas. Much of the United States is already inundated.Temperatures are rising; IQs are dropping. Four of the five stupidest years on record have occurred since 2000.

I would of course have preferred a declaration by the president of the United States -- purportedly God's messenger on earth -- stating that neither God nor WMDs ever existed and that most religious beliefs are untrue and harmful, and urging citizens to bring their minds back up at least to an eighteenth-century stage of development. (I have proposed this plan in a letter to George W. Bush, but haven't heard back yet. They must be hashing out the details.) Failing that, it is up to atheist/secularist groups and individuals to do what we can to stop global worming (people groveling like worms before nonexistent deities). That's where this book comes in.

As a number of these collected quotes say (far more wittily): Religion in general is based on falsehoods -- comforting beliefs in a heavenly parent or big brother; hopes of surviving death -- and on utility or expedience: socially cohesive tribal myths; politically useful codes of law and behavior; divine ordination of rulers (including certain presidents); attempts to explain, influence, or placate nature and the elements; the wish to raise ourselves above (i.e., deny our place among) the animals. Religion may help people feel their lives have a loftier purpose than the mere satisfaction of material wants and sensual desires, but it does it with smoke and mirrors, at the cost of our respect for truth and of our integrity and dignity.

The following quotes are selected from The Quotable Atheist.

Richard Dawkins: Kenyan-born British zoologist and evolutionary theorist.

"Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? ... The afterlifeobsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile. ...Yet ... it is very very cheap. ...To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used." - 2001

"[A letter to a U.K. newspaper] says 'science provides an explanation of the mechanism of the [December 2004 Asian] tsunami but it cannot say why this occurred any more than religion can.' There, in one sentence, we have the religious mind displayed before us in all its absurdity. In what sense of the word 'why', does plate tectonics not provide the answer? Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety. Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering."

Phyllis Diller: (1917– ), American comedian.

"Religion is such a medieval idea. Don't get me started. ... Aahh, it’s all about money..."

Phil Donahue: (1935-) American talk-show host.

From Donahue's 1985 book The Human Animal:

"Science may have come a long way, but as far as religion is concerned, we are first cousins to the !Kung tribesmen of the Kalahari Desert. Except for the garments, their deep religious trances might just as well be happening at a revival meeting or in the congregation of a fundamentalist TV preacher. ... As we move further from the life of ignorance and superstition in which religion has its roots, we seem to need it more and more. ... Why has religion become a force just when we'd have thought it would be losing ground to secularism?"

Frederick Douglass: (1818-1895), African-American abolitionist leader.

"I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. ... For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by these Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!"

"We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go hand in hand."

Jerry Falwell: (1933- ), American evangelical pastor, televangelist, and leading excrescence.

"Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

Thomas Jefferson: (1743-1826), third U.S. president.

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ... perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind ... a mere contrivance [for the clergy] to filch wealth and power to themselves."

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty, he is always in allegiance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own. ... History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. ... Political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves [of public ignorance] for their own purpose."

Michael Moore: (1954- ), American documentary filmmaker and author.

"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them."

Katha Pollitt: (1949- ), American poet and columnist for The Nation.

"For me, religion is serious business -- a farrago of authoritarian nonsense, misogyny and humble pie, the eternal enemy of human happiness and freedom."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: atheist, quotations

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oh well
Posted by: gjames on Feb 8, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a contrarian, so keep that in mind, but if what's lacking is, as you say, critical examination of religion, I propose actually critically examining religion is a better way to resolve some of the differences between us humans, rather than the kind of ridicule you have here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh well Posted by: aethr
» RE: Oh well Posted by: gjames
» RE: Oh well Posted by: bgormley
» Ridicule or sarcasm Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Oh well Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Oh well Posted by: aethr
» Yes, what no one else could do... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Oh well Posted by: willymack
» the question of the divine Posted by: Coleman
» RE: the question of the divine Posted by: willymack
» RE: Oh well Posted by: tgabriel
And Just Where Did the Positive Values Come From?
Posted by: jhbeck23 on Feb 8, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have lots of reasons to oppose political fundamentalists, but AlterNet should think twice about its increasingly anti-religious stance. Where after all do positive values come from?

There is no good or bad in science. There is no good or bad in economics. There is no good or bad in technology. (And I won't mention politics.) And when there is no good or bad, you get whatever can be provoked out of the ambitions of arms merchants and egotistical politicians.

The reason for the fundamentalist outbursts of the last hundred years is that the dominant social viewpoints are value-free -- which means that only the values we bring to them as individuals are active. But our system has been undermining personal values very aggressively. Malleable consumers is all we are wanted to be. Otherwise we are just tiny specks of meaningless existence in an accidental universe. You don't get any responsibility from that.

Alongside all public religions is -- and always has been -- an "esoteric" side. Esoteric Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and of course Buddhism are in profound and positive agreement. That is the direction in which the third millennium must be moving, and many people are.

In 1939 Albert Einstein said that "the ancients knew something which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Is Religion The Source Of Morality? Posted by: freebie_grabber
» Ask the ethnologists Posted by: dkm
I've Got a Quote Too
Posted by: Manila Ryce on Feb 8, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God."
-Heywood Broun

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: bgormley
» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: MrAllen
» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: cmaukonen
» Really? Can you prove that? Posted by: Coleman
» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: aethr
» RE: I've Got a Quote Too Posted by: Bibs
» Quotes?? Posted by: mirimac
Mere Atheism is not enough
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 8, 2007 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deity belief and worship should be recognized as ridiculous by the age of 12. The question is, what imperfection exists in the human mind that latches onto foolish beliefs so easily? And what can we do to increase the reasoning ability of the average human? It's not just about education. It's about consciousness. There are basically 2 groups on this planet: the moderns, and the primitives. We must somehow help these deity-believers catch up.

"I believe that something much more radical than a decline in religious faith has taken place. For us, the educated members of society, the world has become demystified. Or rather, to put the point more precisely, we no longer take the mysteries we see in the world as expressions of supernatural meaning...the result of this demystification is that we have gone beyond atheism to a point where the issue no longer matters in the way it did to earlier generations." --John Searle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Better yet... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Better yet... Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Mere Atheism is not enough Posted by: ekipnrut
» Progessivism without soul Posted by: fifthworld
The TRUTH will set you free
Posted by: wawa on Feb 8, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rabbi Hillel,

who lived 100 years before The Christ walked the earth

understood that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema;

Holy Wisdom

was the same as the Greek understanding of

The Logos: The Word.


It was Paul and John who first understood

The Word was good and

The Word was The Logos

The Word is The Christ

It was John on Rubber Soul who intuitively knew:

"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love"

Use your imagination, and you will see that

before Christ walked the earth a man,

He was already a She:

Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity

and isn't that good news?


The God Head is One Pure Being;

as much male as female

as much mommy as daddy.

And we are all children of Her Universe;

"He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything;

and everything is born of Him.

He is the supreme controller of the universe,

the maintainer and instructor of humanity.

He is smaller than the smallest."-Bhagavad-Gita]


He indwells the heart of every atom and

She is beyond the Universe.

Wisdom is calling,

She is rattling your windows and shaking your walls

With some more good news of the

three witnesses,

and three always beats one

and not just that,

I've got a fourth.


Matthew 12:31-32,

Mark 3:28-29, and

Luke 12:10

are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:

'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."


What JC said is that God is within every sister, brother and all Creation,


His ways are not your ways and

Her thoughts are not your thoughts

Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,

but to nurture, care and love

And if you have not love, you have nothing at all

And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator

And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth

by those who were so sure they were in, because they are the ones left out.


WAKE UP Christian

+

Hear the wind begin to howl.


eileen fleming,
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The TRUTH will set you free Posted by: johngary66
UncleBuck
Posted by: UncleBuck on Feb 8, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Four of the five stupidest years on record have occurred since 2000." Right on target. Good work, you have a new convert.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Norme
Posted by: Norme on Feb 8, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hooray for Jack Huberman. There are few issues more fundamental to today's problems than those originating in religous dogmas and the ignorance that religions perpetuate.

Ignorance will continue to prevail until the the work of religous historians are widely read. A few very readable examples include: The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read; The Christ Conspiracy-The Greatest Story Ever Sold; The Dark Side of Christianity; and The Sixteen Crucified Saviors. There are many others.

The truth is that Christianity was created from an amalgam of pagan religions, astrology, the deliberations and decisions of cruel old men, and ignorance, fear and guilt. The Bush White House follows the pattern exactly.

Want to see modern reflections of pagan gods, look at the list of Saints in the Roman Catholic Church. Saints were initially created as inducements to pagans to "come on over" to the state religion of Rome. The threatened alternative to conversion was often torture and death.

We have massive unemployment, tax giveaways to the most wealthy families and to the least sustainable industries, flaunt international law and lead the world in our military budgets and armament sales. Yet our leaders smugly claim the moral high ground. If you want a hint of where the money is going today, look at the military/defense industries and the building programs of banks and churches. What a joke.

Tax deductions to religous groups ought to be dropped from the tax code because the burden of making up the shortfall is shared by the non-religous as well as the religous. It is a state subsidy of goofy belief systems based on prehistoric myths updated to hide and maintain their viability.

MANY in the clergy know all of the above to be true but, hey its a job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Norme Posted by: mobile68
Maybe Too Quick to Judge?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 8, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think he is too strong in his condemation of the belief in God. Maybe there is a God as discribed in the Holy Bible?

Though I don't believe in the existance of a "god." Maybe there is.

Of course, this god is one twisted fuck, if it does exist. But, my point is: we should keep an open mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: NO! Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: NO! Posted by: Bibs
» RE: NO! Posted by: Mal'ak
» Forced Belief Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: bgormley
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: bgormley
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: pierre513
» RE: Maybe Too Quick to Judge? Posted by: Veronique
» Perhaps Far Too Slow to Judge. Posted by: Tatarize
Ignota nulla curatio morbid
Posted by: Chevaliere on Feb 8, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand."

The individuals who create subjective "faith based" religious systems can be described and analyzed clinically: schizoidal psychopaths.

Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the one of the creators of modern psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied via statistical analysis, and no biological test was then available that could solve this dilemma. Thus, for practical reasons, it is discussed without reference to this traditional relationship.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological world-view makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their evil-generating role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

Read Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski.
Catherine Austin Fitts review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ignota nulla curatio morbid Posted by: aislinnluv
» Its about people we all know. Posted by: coñoloco
Ignota nulla curatio morbid
Posted by: Chevaliere on Feb 8, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand."

The individuals who create subjective "faith based" religious systems can be described and analyzed clinically: schizoidal psychopaths.

Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the one of the creators of modern psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied via statistical analysis, and no biological test was then available that could solve this dilemma. Thus, for practical reasons, it is discussed without reference to this traditional relationship.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological world-view makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their evil-generating role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

Read Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski.
Catherine Austin Fitts review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignota nulla curatio morbid
Posted by: Chevaliere on Feb 8, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand."

The individuals who create subjective "faith based" religious systems can be described and analyzed clinically: schizoidal psychopaths.

Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the one of the creators of modern psychiatry, Emil Kraepelin. In the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied via statistical analysis, and no biological test was then available that could solve this dilemma. Thus, for practical reasons, it is discussed without reference to this traditional relationship.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological world-view makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their evil-generating role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

Read Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski.
Catherine Austin Fitts review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop spamming, please. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
The anti-intellectualism is the scary part
Posted by: lb on Feb 8, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I am atheist, I would leave followers of religion alone IF they stopped trying to gut the educational system and wipe out centuries of scientific learning. The growing number of people in this country who have the level of knowledge of a 16th century serf is frightening.
I just watched "Inherit the Wind" again last night, and it rings just as true today as when it was written. Religion goes hand-in-hand with this administration because they don't want us to THINK. If we thought, we would be doing something about global warming, the approaching end of fossil fuels, poverty and the next global epidemics. Karl Marx was right - religion is the opiate of the masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atheism Is A Religion And Needs Tax Exemption
Posted by: hole11 on Feb 8, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do I have to explain myself?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» People Worship War Too Posted by: hole11
» You Could Do This Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon
» RE: You Could Do This Posted by: hole11
From one extreme to the other... mercy
Posted by: feduphoosier on Feb 8, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would hope that Athiests will allow for some difference between the 'religious' and the 'spiritual.' Actually, they probably have no idea what the word 'spiritual' means... OK, I guess this is just one extreme attacking the other, so I can dismiss both, together.

I find extremes to be annoying -- on either end of the spectrum. In my experience, life is to be found in the gray area. Personally, I do see religion as the root cause of most if not all wars - that and of course money (or religion as a front for money and power.) But that doesn't stop me from being a spiritual person. I see no connection between the two. One involves being told what to believe and relinquishing my ability to reason. The other allows for me to make my own decisions, but not rule out everything as 'impossible' simply because I can't see or touch it. I can't see or touch an electron or a quark, but apparently that doesn't stop them from existing.

As for lumping psychics in with everything laughable, I would like to remind the author that psychic ability can be proven scientifically - else the government probably wouldn't have invested so much money in remote viewing, and police the world over wouldn't consult with psychic investigators on those occasions when nothing else is working. Psychic ability is a normal part of the human condition - a gift - talent, if that is a more acceptable word. Personally, I don't believe in snowboarding... but its hard to argue that the Flying Tomato is having some measurable success at it.

I believe religion does serve to enslave the masses. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or go ahead, but realize... by flying to the opposite extreme, you're really no more believable than the religious persecutors you oppose. Believe in everything, or believe in nothing... but the majority of people the world over fall somewhere in between.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Feb 8, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find that I agree with basically everything this article has to offer. Religion is the drug of the masses, and there is no difference, to me, between Christianity and any other primitive mythology.

Joseph Campbell had it right. Mythology is not a bad thing - at its best it serves to teach us how to live, and at its worst it generates hatred and antagonism to the point of war and destruction. Mythology should be seen as symbolic, a way to explain with words that which has no words. The problems occur when people take religious writings and teachings literally.

As I've stated in other posts, the willing death of a king or leader and a subsequent rise from death is not unique to Christianity. It's a symbolic story that explains the life-death-life cycle. It is a world-wide myth, centuries old. It takes the reality of our mortality, and that of all living creatures, and attempts to make sense of it. In spite of the fact that we will die, part of us remains. That part, in Christian mythology, goes to heaven if, and only if, you accept that Christ died for your sins.

But the part of us that remains could be our legacy, the poems left by the poet, the philosophy of Jesus, the paintings or sculture of the artist. Each of us has a small or large legacy to pass on, and it's amazing how many lives we affect without our even realizing it. That's enough immortality for me.

Making literal the stories that give meaning or purpose to our lives is not superior to a healthy skepticism or secular humanism, or even outright atheism. And atheism is most certainly NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a religion as some here suggest! It's not a religion to not believe in Santa Claus or Zeus or flying spaghetti monsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: im confused Posted by: shower
intolerance
Posted by: xgroverx on Feb 8, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In general, I like atheists. They tend to have more compassion and concern for their fellow humans than religious individuals do. However, Huberman seems to display the same intolerance of other's beliefs as those whom he attacks. Also, I've noticed that individuals like Huberman, Harris, and Dawkins fail to make a distinction between organized religion and personal spirituality. Organized religion is a corrupt institution that exploits the insecurities of its followers to amass wealth, power, and political influence. It encourages people to blindly accept what they are told without question, attacking any individual thought. Personal spirituality, on the other hand, reflects an individual's quest to answer the 'big questions' of meaning and existence. It doesn't need to adhere to any established belief system. Perhaps before painting all non-atheists with such a broad brush, Huberman and others would do well to read the works of Kant, Tolstoy, Thoreau, and Emerson, among others, in order to better understand the transcendental and individual nature of true faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: intolerance Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: intolerance Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: intolerance Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: intolerance Posted by: bgormley
» RE: intolerance Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: intolerance Posted by: mjm
» RE: intolerance Posted by: Veronique
» RE: intolerance Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: intolerance Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: intolerance Posted by: Bibs
For What It's Worth...
Posted by: kane1369 on Feb 8, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No subject is more dividing than religion. That of itself should tell us something. All these religions claim to be the one "true" way for a benighted humanity. Reason tells me that while they all cannot be right they all can be wrong. I chose to not believe in "God" for the same reason I chose to not believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. As a child those notions are comforting, as an adult, exercising my ability to reason as I look about this world, they are at best fanciful, at worst, dangerous. I am, by any measure, a spiritual person. Who has not felt a deep stirring within themselves as they witness the wonders of nature...a full moon illuminating the Badlands, the sunrise racing naked across the snows? Who does not feel that same stirring when witnessing achievements of humankind... great music, art, exploring the space beyond our Earth? That is the spiritual side of humans and is as vital to us as our power of reason. The problem with religion is that it is a form of social control, easily perverted for people who desire power over others. Did not Christ teach tolerance, compassion and love for those who are different than ourselves? Today those who claim to be his followers yet despise people with whom they do not agree or do not understand are rapidly pushing an agenda that includes hate and quickly making our world a far worse place to live for all of us. Anyone that can transmute water to wine is welcome at my home...it's those fan clubs that make me uneasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As an atheist
Posted by: chaoslegs on Feb 8, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found the quotes very interesting. I found the lead into the quotes to be very cruel and distasteful.

I don't understand the faith others have, but that doesn't mean that their faith or belief is hurtful. There are lots of religious people that help society every day. If their belief and the religious instruction they received led them to that path, then good for them. What the religious need to keep in mind is that those of us without their religious instruction can also be very good and decent members of society, not just the believers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are a spec...deal with it weenie
Posted by: buzzjustice on Feb 8, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Want prupose? Make your own! Part of being passive and obedient is by having Zeus or Man God or whatever give it to you. Want social change? Get off your ass and organize around the principles of justice, equality, rule of law, and stewardship of the environment. Hows that for purpose? Or spend your time and brief life energy arguing about why you cling to your silly superstitions while the wealthy elites bring the world house down around our ears by indulging their pathological greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How sad
Posted by: fifthworld on Feb 8, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Such religious intensity put to "disproving" God - or the 'Ultimate', or whatever -- i.e. what ever way you want to get your mind around what is beyond the chatterbox ego and human stupidity. I will allow, though, that one need not speak of "God" per se, theistically or otherwise, to walk a sacred path in life. Blessings...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Bible needed for morality
Posted by: Sienna555 on Feb 8, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One needs no bible to consider the perils of immoral behavior on the survival of the species. Considering that there is no place on this planet where a single adult human can raise an infant to maturity without help from others, we must assume that we have been somewhat helpful and kind to each other since before language was invented, otherwise we wouldn't have any friends, right? There are good reasons to behave morally that have nothing to do with the Bible. We need each other to be helpful to each other, and moral behavior creates such an environment.

First and foremost, if you murder someone, then they are not around to help you when bad weather kicks in, when emergencies happen, or when you are stranded with no food. If everyone murdered whoever they wanted to, for whatever reason, then we wouldn't have survived as a species. We'd all be dead.

Lying is detrimental to creating those helpful relationships, as is cheating and stealing. Moral behavior only has positive consequences if everyone does it, so it's enfused in our genetic makeup to be moral, just as it's enfused in a mother lion to be kind to her cubs and the other lions in her pride. Lions don't read Bibles, but yet they behave morally to others of their clan. Why would they even consider doing such a thing?

The key is seeing that we are ALL of the same kind of animal, not of different packs or tribes. If we ever became under attack by something totally alien to the planet, it would arise in our species to defend even those we now beleive are our enemies. It's in our DNA, folks. People who do not behave morally are labled "insane" and locked away, whether they beleive the bible or not. The only people who need others to tell them to behave morally are those who consider immoral behavior to be a part of healthy human psychology, which, in itself, is insane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Bible needed for morality Posted by: art guerrilla
Atheism for Dummies?
Posted by: MAD on Feb 8, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot relate to religious zealots any more than the average poster, but if you pulled this little number out of your pocket and began citing purely subjective passages from the likes of Phyllis Diller or Michael Moore, I would be hard pressed to distinguish you from one of the idiots who whips out their bible and tells me that Jesus is the only answer . . .

Maybe we can be fair and publish "Ammunition for the Religious" wherein we chronicle the misdeeds of a few well meaning, atheistic sociopaths who liquidated tens of millions of humans, but along leftist, "intellectual" lines of course, which may explain why so many are quick to dismiss their genocidal rampages. A cursory glance at the Guardian CiF bears this out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uncle Buck
Posted by: UncleBuck on Feb 8, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget why the founders of this country explicitly called for separation of church and state. It was their wholehearted rejection of the christian church. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc, etc, were Deists. They believed that spirituality came from within the hearts and minds of men, not the organization they knew to be complicate with the suppression of knowledge and wisdom, and the oppression of mankind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Uncle Buck Posted by: detroitsuperfly
» RE: detroitsuperfly Posted by: UncleBuck
Atheism=Fundamentalism
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 8, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have posted this posit before and am sticking with it:
Atheism, while not a religion, exhibits many of the same foibles and falls into many of the same traps as do many faiths.

I understand agnostics and respect their viewpoint. They also tend to be, as a group, more tolerant of others than anyone else. Atheists, by their very declaration that there is no deity (or deities), are in the same boat of intolerance, divisiveness and polarization as any fundamentalist of any brand of faith. Claiming to have an absolute monopoly on the issue and then bullying everyone else with it is absurd.

No human has been to the center of our planet or been beyond the orbit of our moon, yet a group of humans have decided that they are the sole owners of truth regarding even the possibility that some life force, higher than our own, could exist or have created all that we know. That is the definition of arrogant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well... Posted by: Tatarize
» Good point, though. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» What is "nm"? Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: detroitsuperfly
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: NoPCZone
» Right on Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Atheism=Fundamentalism Posted by: stamina
Sorry, those weren't ammunition, they were duds.
Posted by: detroitsuperfly on Feb 8, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper?"

Yes, tell them that its patriotic to die for your country. Then give them no armor or funding. People in general can be lead to believe that their actions, no matter how insane, are the best and natural thing to do. madison ave. has been doing this for decades.

"'science provides an explanation of the mechanism of the [December 2004 Asian] tsunami but it cannot say why this occurred any more than religion can.There, in one sentence, we have the religious mind displayed before us in all its absurdity."

Actually, logically Dawkins calls religion and science, in the same sentence both absurd, (whether he realizes it or not) if neither can explain WHY tsunami's occur.

Thomas Jefferson?

Come on!!! At least don't be dishonest! He was a deist!

Michael Moore?
All his quote does is serve as a reminder how pure and beautiful religion can be manipulated by people with an agenda. Religion is man's construction to worship and explain their perception of God. God is God, religion is man. This also applies to your Pollitt Quote.


I have yet to see a convincing atheist argument. They are typically misunderstandings based in lack of knowledge, applied in reaction to political zealots as if they were the entirety, and/or semantics, word plays and mostly empty insults. Intellectualism isn't exclusive to atheism. SOme of the greatest minds in history have been Christian as have some of the greatest scientists.

So please shelve your smug elitism, its as ignorant as smug elitist as insulting radical evangelicals and leaves nothing for debate. Its basically states the same dishonest intellectual premise of the radical right; you are lesser than me for not believing what I do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You can't Prove That God Does Not Exist Posted by: freebie_grabber
Bakunin
Posted by: kelt65 on Feb 8, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Even if god did exist, we would have to abolish him"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bakunin Posted by: Coleman
can't wait to see the rest of the quotes
Posted by: anniedine on Feb 8, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if this one is included:
"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

Thus spake L. Ron Hubbard – high holy founder of Scientology (of which Tom Cruise is the "Jesus").

Or how about this one:
"If there’s a God, and he’s intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor. And how do you know He is NOT a Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

Thus spake Bobby Henderson, founder of the Church of teh Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's so easy to settle this
Posted by: Crazy H on Feb 8, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could get all the religious leaders together, and have a contest, sort of like the olympics.

We could have the 100 meter water-walk. Each priest, rabbi, mullah or shaman would be given the chance to beat the others to the finish line while walking on water.

We could have a lightning-call. Each contestant would be judged on style, maximum voltage, and artistic substance.

The wine-to-water contest would have to be judged by leading wine connoisseurs, using the same high standards as in international wine-tasting competitions of the more mundane sort.

Rasing the dead would be a straight race: first one to animate a corpse would win. Or perhaps the race should be between the priests, themselves - the first one to return from the dead wins a gold medal, the second gets silver, etc. (how they get dead in the first place might be open to discussion - above all, it could not break any religious taboos concerning suicide. Perhaps each contestant could get a written waiver from his or her favorite diety, along with a money-back guarantee that the participant would, in fact, be resurrected before the start of the next conest.)

At the very least, such a contest should eliminate any more arguments about which was the true religion and we can go from there.

Anyone else got any suggestions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've got a suggestion... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I've got a suggestion... Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: I've got a suggestion... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I've got a suggestion... Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: It's so easy to settle this Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: More events Posted by: UncleBuck
» I pick 'leave it' nm. Posted by: EasterBunny
Reigion is just as controlling and addicitive as drugs
Posted by: mobile68 on Feb 8, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as the stupidity level rising in this country, in my experience it began way before 2000. Me and my husband tried to organize a block club to try to reduce the rise in burglaries in the neighborhood and force the police and the mayor to do their jobs, because as we told our neighbors, your property taxes are paying their salaries, they said they did not want to get involved because they felt they weren't being affected. "We got god on our side" one lady told me. Yet five people on that block tried to get us to join their church and we told them we are atheists. Guess what happened next?
We posted a no solicting sign on our front door and watched the crime go up in the neighborhood. We moved out two years later. They stayed behind and had cars stolen, garages broken into, etc. We go back to check on the neighboorhood time to time to see has their god came and saved them yet. The neighboorhood almost look unrecognizable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Feb 8, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion is mainly superstition, and organized religion is that of misrepresention of myths. My religious thoughts , if any, should not be of concern to others, and theirs should not be of concern to me. Unfortunately, organized religion has been a root cause of much violence . We would probably all be better off without it .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: rtmyth
» RE: dick Posted by: Bibs
Religion as an excuse
Posted by: gjones on Feb 8, 2007 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am personally sick of people using their belief in god (or allah or whatever) as a reason to hurt people and not care about what is here, on our earth. If you believe that you will be absolved of all sin, then why bother being good, or caring, or kind or all of the things that religions (supposedly) teach? I am sick of hearing about people foregoing their PERSONAL responsibilities "in the name of god". I haven't heard of any religion (except maybe buddhism) in which people are held accountable for their deeds here on earth!

It's not about being religious, its about looking at all of the earth's inhabitants with equal respect and consideration, not just the ones that believe what you or I do.

I would better respect those that I know feel the need to believe in religion, if they could ony respect my lack thereof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs ammunition when you have cognizance and a free society?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 8, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meh. Somebody else's ammunition is over rated. Mine is home schooled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Most home schoolers Posted by: Ellie1
» Who's A Sh_thead?!? Posted by: grumble-bum
» You shouldn't feed the animals. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Distinctions Please
Posted by: tpwebb on Feb 8, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes no distinction the thoughtless, shrill, screaming associated with various forms of fundamentalist preachers of all persuasions and the thoughtful, careful, contemplative form of religion which is part of the mainline religious traditions and their adherents.

Thoughtless religion - just as thoughtless secularism which is unable to critically examine it's assumptions and truth claims - are equally bad form and serve no one well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Distinctions Please Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Distinctions Please Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Distinctions Please Posted by: Bibs
Forarmed is Forwarned
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Feb 8, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial systems are important tools for survival and happiness.
Not everything need be "proved" to everyone, this minute.
I don't want anyone interupting my fantasies to tell me, "that would never happen".
I like to look at the stars and imagine a place/state with alot less pain and more friends. When alternatives offer the imagination and the suffering more than criticism and a promise of future obsolescence, they'll make more progress.
That's why I like the growing sense of solidarity and community we're seeing among atheists, agnostics and "whatevers". If books and shows help this, great. But, if it's just for proving "I'm right and you're the Psycho (because Donahue says)", then it feels like more piety to me.
I'd like to see more "atheists and believers for healthcare" or "humanists and Muslims for peace". It seems easier to prove than "God doesn't exist" anyway. It may involve more work than imagination but, both will be required.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forarmed is Forwarned Posted by: freebie_grabber
Religion is a luxury for Idiots and Warmongers
Posted by: Darrell Kern on Feb 8, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organized religion has always been debunked by the worlds greatest minds. In fact, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence see through the cloudy veil of religion almost immediately. Depending on how gullible someone is will be directly proportionate to their further involvement in silly scripture.

I for one have tried to believe, but nothing good ever came from with the exception of some quick relief and band-aid pain remedies.

Religion permeates through our society and echos down the hall of governments simply because the masses are so seemingly effected by it.

The hypocrasy has lasted way too long and everyone knows it, except them. It has become total lunacy and will last until people learn to think for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No tolerance for intolerance
Posted by: lessbread on Feb 8, 2007 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's simple really. Tolerant religion should be tolerated and intolerant religion should not be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No tolerance for intolerance Posted by: grailsnail
A religion on the rise...
Posted by: justAnEgg on Feb 8, 2007 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
José Luis De Jesús Miranda of Puerto Rico, i.e. The Man Christ Jesus, started his carrier as a reincarnation of St. Paul but - since it was not persuasive enough - he decided to become the second coming of Jesus. Now he has hundreds of thousands of believers in more than 30 countries worldwide, his own TV and radio satellite channels, turns millions of dollars a year, and claims he will end sin and save the world. Here are some links to related web sites:

Growing in Grace, name of his cult and his homepage.

where you'll find links to articles about him in Newsweek, HoustonPress, YouTube, etc.

Isn't it wonderful, to have an opportunity to watch the birth of a new god? Old Romans used to say: Nomen est omen - is it possible that this guy considers himself called by his father God to establish a new religion, a new cult, and make some money on his way?

I can understand José Luis De Jesús Miranda but I cannot understand those hundreds of thousands of his believers, and I fear they will tomorrow set the frame of my life, the same way other lost in space ones did it through history of mankind.

With all our reason and science, we are not capable of emancipating ourselves from the higher authorities. Is that what you call "spirituality"? I am disgusted!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A religion on the rise... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: A religion on the rise... Posted by: justAnEgg
» A Latin Sun Myung Moon? Posted by: lessbread
Distinguish
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 8, 2007 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a former Catholic priest and monk. I reject religions but not Religion. Many of these posts are self-contradictory. The first rule of reason is to distinguish. Bene distinguere, bene discere. Religionists said it first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Distinguish Posted by: Darrell Kern
» RE: Distinguish Posted by: wisewebwoman
Consider
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 8, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Tzar was a religionist. Stalin was an atheist. Who did the most harm?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Consider Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
» RE: Consider Posted by: Darrell Kern
» RE: Consider Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Consider Posted by: redbrownandblueparty
» Good point! Posted by: justAnEgg
» A recant? Posted by: lessbread
» Excellent rebuttal -nm Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Consider Posted by: grailsnail
Veronique
Posted by: Veronique on Feb 8, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By all means keep an open mind. Don't let it be so open that your brains fall out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Feb 8, 2007 7:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the viewpoint expressed in the article. I was raised in a very strict Catholic home, attended Catholic school and have done years of penance for all the sins I committed starting in kindergarten.
Whether there is an all-seeing or all-knowing deity to me is very much a non-issue. I have tremendous trouble with this chappie in the sky wagging his finger and demanding his underlings on this tiny planet build huge mother churches and attend them regularly to tell him they love him and that they will listen to the rare few higherups that are appointed by him to interpret his ravings in a couple of big books that he supposedly wrote to enlighten us and smite those who might disagree.
I mean, c'mon. And also that he murdered his son just for us and that the mother of his son did not dirty herself with despicable sexual congress.
I could go on but I make my own derisive point about organized religions that demand we believe these spins so that we can earn our place in a better world on the other side while ignoring a planet that is being whored on the altar of greed?
To me it's very simple. So I'm a simpleton. Waiting for the flames of hell and flamers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dear Wise Web Woman, Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Dear Wise Web Woman, Posted by: wisewebwoman
Obviously, the fact that Haggard
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Feb 8, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is now a bona fide, authenticated 100% vetted heterosexual male is enough proof there is a fundamentalist-style Christian god.

And I'm so happy He the Lord cares so much about Mr. Haggard and his struggle he could afford to flush away 300,000 people so unhappily in the way of a little tsunami.

And so on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obviously, the fact that Haggard Posted by: wisewebwoman
they are prey
Posted by: bugjackblue on Feb 8, 2007 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would you want to change them? They are willful prey.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion actually "Belief" at all?
Posted by: akwash on Feb 9, 2007 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During my lifetime I have noticed a rather unusual trend with people in regards to religion. It seems to me that religion is more a social construct than an actual "belief". Belief seems to have very little to do with religion in the face of tradition.

For example, Most people who have Jewish, Christian, Amish, Etc... parents are more than likely to follow that same religion. It doesn't seem very common for children to abandon the religion of their parents for another more suitable to their actual beliefs. In most circumstances, It doesn't even appear another religion has been thoroughly researched to any extent. Basically what I am saying is that there is no challenge to it. It is told, then accepted. This is too militant for my inquisitive mind.

Does tradition automatically = belief?

Do the parents beliefs automatically = the belief of the children?

Unlikely, since in other aspects the children will sometimes feel very differently then their parents on certain subjects(music, television for example).

For these reasons I find that religion usually has very little to do with belief. What are your thoughts on this? I am very interested in hearing others comments on this(religious and non-religious alike.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't it great to take quotes completely out of context?
Posted by: ThehosGendar on Feb 9, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then you can support any wacky argument you want. It'd be nice you actually read the rest of someone's work.

Frederick Douglass, for example, in his Appendix to his "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" says he doesn't hate religion, or Christianity, just the hypocrisy of those who preach and don't live up to their words:

"I find, since reading over the foregoing Narrative, that I have, in several instances, spoken in such a tone and manner, respecting religion, as may possibly lead those unacquainted with my religious views to suppose me an opponent of all religion. To remove the liability of such misapprehension, I deem it proper to append the following brief explanation. What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the ~slaveholding religion~ of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of "stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in." I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families,--sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,--leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the POOR HEATHEN! ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD AND THE GOOD OF SOULS! The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time... The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.
(Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass [Anti-Slavery Office: 1845], pg 100 - 101 in the Barnes and Noble Classics edition.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I miss the old AlterNet.
Posted by: CrystalD on Feb 9, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something tells me AlterNet has acquired a new editor in the past year, one with a bee in his bonnet and a hero-worship of Richard Dawkins.

AlterNet has published some great articles in the past - feminist arguements against sociobiology, calls for universal healthcare, terrific articles in general about feminist, race, and class issues. Once it was my go-to site for progressive politics.

And now what do I find? "Chicken Soup for the Atheist's Soul!" That's all this book really is. And more and more blathering by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. By taking a blatant anti-religion stance, you, AlterNet, are going to alienate much of your potential audience, because there are plenty of progressive Christians, Jews, Pagans, Buddhists and yes, Muslims out there who share an interest in a just society for all. Is this what you want? To be the next "Free Inquiry" instead of a thought-provoking progressive website?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I miss the old AlterNet. Posted by: ekipnrut
» THANK YOU Posted by: fifthworld
» Heavens, Yes. Posted by: grumble-bum
» huh??? Posted by: EasterBunny
As a man thinketh...
Posted by: pnsuitec on Feb 9, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What could possibly cause any clear thinking person to join the growing legions of atheists?

One answer could be ignorance. It is possible that some of these people just don't know God. They have never been taught about His love, never asked for His blessings, and never acknowledged His presence in their lives, or the lives of others.

Another reason might be weakness. Perhaps some of them have learned about God, and even witnessed the power of His presence, but are afraid of enhancing their relationship with God for fear of being ridiculed by their associates, and/or losing a coveted professional position.

A third possibility could be defiance. It very well may be that many atheists know their beliefs are false but, for whatever reason, have dedicated themselves to turning as many people away from God as possible.

Needless to say, it is wrong to work against the truth of God's greatness, whether knowingly or unknowingly. At the end of their careers on Earth, every person involved in teaching lies about God's existence will be judged for admittance into His Heavenly Kingdom according to his or her individual motivation, and by the number of souls negatively influenced by their efforts to discredit our Heavenly Father.

The ignorant will not be judged as harshly as the weak, while the defiant, as acknowledged enemies of God, will find it very difficult to gain entrance to the next phase of life.

It is important to understand, however, that the greatest threat to the continued existence of an atheist at the termination of his or her time on Earth, regardless of personal motivating factors, is negative self-programming.

What this means is that when a person reaches the conclusion that there is no such thing as an after-life, a subliminal set of instructions is installed in the non-believer that will attempt to shut down his or her whole being at the time of death. By denying the existence of God's Heavenly Kingdom, the atheist effectively sets in motion a self-destructive internal program that says there is nothing after this life, and which could, barring devine intervention, cause the mind and soul of such a hapless individual to die simultaneously with the body.

Let those, therefore, who would embrace the teachings of atheism, be forewarned: "As a man thinketh, so is he."

If you choose to believe that "when you're dead, you're done," you are probably right.

Paul Howard Nicholas
Author of "Extinguishing the Flames of Hell, A Journey of Spiritual Evolution"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Growing legions? Baloney! Posted by: lessbread
» I wouldn't call them demons. Posted by: pnsuitec
» "...A Journey of Spiritual Evolution"? Posted by: freebie_grabber
One Big Happy Family
Posted by: Mal'ak on Feb 9, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, only ignorance would lump all non-atheists into one big group. That's like putting everyone of the same race or sex into the same group. Hmmm... Isn't this site dedicated to stopping characterization?
First, as I stated in a reply to the reply "NO!" to the post (below) called "Maybe too quick to judge," the earth and all that is on it are sufficient proof for a Creator. Even Evolution requires a creator at the foundation. After all, how can there be a Big Bang unless the material for that explosion was created? At some point, creation had to occur, no matter what system (whether "scientific" or "religious") you believe.
Second, in response to some of the quotes, it is poor logic to simply put all Christians, or theists, into the same camp, simply because not all theists believe the same thing. Though all claim the same foundation, not all act in the same way. Especially against the quotes by Fredrick Douglas: William Wilberforce, one of the major voices in Parliament for the abolition of slavery in England, was an open Christian.
Third, a rejection of God has resulted in some of the worst brutality of history because without any moral compass, what will stop humans from doing whatever comes into their mind? Hitler and the Communist leadership (in Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) had all rejected the idea of God before starting out on their attacks. In fact, evolution was the main force behind Hitler's genocide. Do we say that all evolutionists are racist, just because Hitler believed in Evolution and was racist? Of course they aren't, and it would be complete foolishness to say so.
Now, am I saying that all theists have acted correctly? No. Sadly, some terrible acts have occurred in the name of Diety (terrorism, Jim Jones cult, Branch Davidians, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.), and many have used their religious status to protect their own heinous acts. I don't defend these people; they are worthy of condemnation. But please don't blame all theists (and reject the idea of God) simply because some have abused that name. Take each person individually and realize that anyone can claim a name, even if they don't really follow that name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Big Happy Family Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: One Big Happy Family Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: One Big Happy Family Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: One Big Happy Family Posted by: Mal'ak
I wonder if that book talks about the stone paradox
Posted by: cmd1234 on Feb 9, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The stone paradox works like this: Christians claim to have an omnipotent god, ie, there is nothing that he cannot do. So this is the question: Can God create a stone that he cannot lift. If so, then there is something god cannot do, lift the stone. If not, there is something he cannot do, create such a stone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Theological subtlety, please? Posted by: fifthworld
» Begging the question Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: akwash
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: akwash
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: Mal'ak
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: UncleBuck
» The String Theory Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: akwash
» Finite regression Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Begging the question Posted by: akwash
We must remember...
Posted by: TRC on Feb 9, 2007 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an agnostic and a person with a strong sense of justice I am happy to hear rationalists expressing themselves with less fear of persecution or ostracism.
However, Mr Huberman's tone of ridicule is, I think, counter productive.
We must remember that many believers were coerced as children into accepting supernaturalism. Coerced by the fear of hell and of non-acceptance.
If we are assertive and respectful we will change more hearts and minds.
Reason and reality are on our side. We need to teach and demonstrate that the world is bigger and more beautiful outside of the box of religion - that there is an enormous price to pay when we confuse reality with wishful thinking and that unknowns (which religion is designed to dissolve) need not cause anxiety.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We must remember... Posted by: EasterBunny
» Ridicule counterproductive Posted by: tspide
» Thank you Posted by: freedomhawk
» RE: Thank you - concur Posted by: tspide
why not synthesis?
Posted by: wonself on Feb 10, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thesis = religion
--> antithesis=philosophy
==> synthesis=love

love is the key to all questions and answers,
because hate and mistrust always divides and hurts,
but love integrates and heals (not for ever, but ever again)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Protesteth Too Much
Posted by: boxOFrocks on Feb 10, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer posits the notion that the best way to deal with an opposing POV is to eliminate it. That’s nice, very tolerant and progressive of him. I’m glad he wrote this because it solidifies the notion that something is acceptable because progressives say it is. That standard reduces “tolerance” to meaningless gibberish as a personal value.

Atheists and agnostics have watched and stewed as the religious right has expanded it’s influence throughout public life? The social constructs progressives fear would be tampered with by an even more influential religious right are overtly and measurably moving toward the progressive end of the spectrum. The religious right would restrict or end abortion…it has become more available, the mere idea of discussing gay marriage would have seemed absurd 20 years ago, and the television and lyrical content of entertainment wouldn’t look anything like it does now. In fact its tough to imagine how depraved some things could get if the religious right wasn’t at least pushing back. Also, the Christian right would stay mainly within a legislatively prescribed path to change, and have been thwarted even in that. I can’t relate to the fear.

Then the writer claims that atheists and progressives are so much more compassionate then their religious right counterparts. Charitable giving is orders of magnitude higher among the religious, as is donation of time. It must redefine compassion as one person donating another person’s money under confiscatory taxes.

American’s decreasing IQ has zero to do with religious faith, and overwhelmingly the shortfalls of our education system are evidenced by homeschooled students outperforming them. Unless you want to say that IQ is measured by belief in God vs. belief in evolution, or by adherence to progressive ideals. Lets keep it objective please!


Why is there such venom? Why are there not other more oppressive groups and beliefs not taking the focus of his ire? What is it about the belief of one person that so upsets another? Where are the outward manifestations of one group foisting their agenda on the other? The score is slanted greatly to the side of atheists and progressives in the game of culture, yet the vitriol and panic keep spewing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why is there such venom? Posted by: tspide
» RE: Protesteth Too Much Posted by: freebie_grabber
Really such a thing as "Atheist"?
Posted by: akwash on Feb 10, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What exactly is the difference between atheist and agnostics?

I contend that all atheists are really agnostics. If most atheists were given undeniable proof of a deity's existence, they would then become believers. Is the difference judged by the gauge of disbelief? I am chuckling as I write this. I find the very notion ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How many atheisms? Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: How many atheisms? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: How many atheisms? Posted by: justAnEgg
Once again I'm disappointed
Posted by: Newcreature52 on Feb 10, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I encounter a link to a site that claims to have the definitive answer(s) against religion I go, hoping to finally find real, reasoned arguments. Instead, I find nothing more than ridicule, sweeping generalizations, name calling, non sequiturs, and the writer using his own position as a starting point.

Granted, many (perhaps most) religious people do much the same, but this in no way invalidates either position.

*Sigh* It would be nice to find some real, logical debate. Does anybody know of any?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Once again I'm disappointed Posted by: leafsong1
» "...some real, logical debate"? Posted by: freebie_grabber
Simple
Posted by: rbentley on Feb 10, 2007 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious or atheist? Here’s The Difference

There are religious people in the world who accept evolution. They seemingly agree to the concept of natural selection. The difference is in the religious person's anthropocentric view of the world.

Christians tend to frame evolution as the explanation for the "ascent of man." While the non-religious view evolution as the explanation of the universe. It is the explanation for the existence of life itself.

For religion to exist, there must be this widely held, narcissistic world view that rides on our natural tendency to see everything as a product of the human imagination. We are really just simple apes, dazzled by the fact of our own consciousness (and enabled by that opposable thumb . . .).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try Living in Hell Before You Criticize Religion
Posted by: fanatical on Feb 10, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now this is some first-rate, Self-righteous, gibberish. Talk about an ivory tower. Try living in a hell on earth before you condescend that the need for God is an illusion and a weakness. For the privileged, strong-minded and comfortable, it is easier to dismiss God and proclaim humanity would be better without the idea. And I thought the religious fanatics were the worst! It seems atheistic self-righteousness could be more damaging. Try suffering here with nothing to look forward to but more suffering. I think you would like the idea of an heavenly after-life. And for that, the idea will always remain, because as long as there are humans there will be suffering-- the worst of which many of us writing on this will never be able to imagine in our worst nightmares. Unless Belief is outlawed, there will always be believers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here'as another one for yoy: Posted by: justAnEgg
Confessions of an Agnostic
Posted by: faultroy on Feb 10, 2007 9:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well...I wonder what to say since Huberman quoted some incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable people...Phyliss Diller?...Michael Moore...? Obviously this book is going to be a real hot seller!!!
I am neither a Christian nor an Atheist. Neither religions (and yes, Atheism is indeed a religion) can prove nor disprove the existence of God. What concerns me about these facile Liberals such as Huberman is their rabid desire to both inflame and antagonize Christians. Why don't they attack Muslims with the same ardor? Perhaps having a Cleric put a Fatwa on their head might make them a little more conciliatory.
As someone who has looked death in the eye via a battlefield, I can say with some expertise that unless you have been there, shit and peed in your pants in fear--convinced you are about to die-- you have no business discussing whether or not God does or does not exist.
There is a sublime beauty in both the simplicity and complexity of life. It is noble, regal, boring and splendid.
One is in awe of its beauty and repelled by its horror.
Only fools, idiots and Liberals deny the existence of God. The rest of us mere mortals fervently pray that if there is no God there is something more than mere Chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confessions of an Agnostic Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Confessions of an Agnostic Posted by: freebie_grabber
Alter Net a Fools Paradise
Posted by: gdonald on Feb 11, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alter Net has become increasingly militaristic in its attacks on christians and conservatives. Of course that is not to say that christian/conservatives don't ask for such critisizms but lets also face the facts that the liberal/democratic appraoches to life and their statements are just as fool hearty.

To argue a point or to make a point such as what this author attempts one must use historical records and facts. This author offers nothing but opinions. Opinions are like people's butts, everyone has one and most of the time they stink.

I do not disagree that much of modern christianity has swayed far from the truths of the gospel. The far out teachings of some big named televangelists are as wacky as the far out opinions of the Hollywood crowd. I would dare to say that if the christians of this country could take a stoll back to the founding days of this country they would see a vastly more educated group of christians and a far different christianity. I can also say with the facts to back it up that our school systems in the last six to seven decades has been turning out students that are far less educated today than they were before the age of political correctness.

So it is not surprising to see the cheap shot authors that Alter Net uses to fill it's pages. What a shame.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "...the founding days of this country"? Posted by: freebie_grabber
dirtroadscholar
Posted by: dirtroadscholar on Feb 11, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a Christian engages in deeds that violate the precepts of his faith, beginning with, "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.", he violates the precepts of his religion. When anyone else does the same, including atheistic secular humanism, he is following the precepts of his religion. MK

Greatest Murderers
The simple fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Dennis Prager has noted, "In this [20th] century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies nazism and communism than by all religions in history."
Grab an older copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and turn to the category "Judicial," sub-heading "Crimes: Mass Killings." You’ll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism.
Guinness reports, "The greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against another is the 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Zedong between 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed...the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32.25 and 61.7 million."
In the USSR, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that state repression and terrorism took over 66 million lives from 1917 to 1959 under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev.
The worst per capita genocide happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to Guinness, "More than one third of the eight million Khmers were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979."
The greatest evil does not result from people zealous for God. It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.
Gregory Koukl
str.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not atheist
Posted by: whitey on Feb 11, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical arrogant militant atheist bullshit
I regard Dawkins and Shrub as equally dangerous egotists
If you don't think you can be progressive, pro-science and spiritual then I pity your drab little lives

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Former Aethiest
Posted by: Omegaman on Feb 11, 2007 10:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was an atheist by age 11. I was not raised in church or with any particular religious training. By the time I was a teenager, I considered myself an intellectual and humanist. I read the books and articles, and knew many of the arguments. Thirty years ago, at age 19, based on a “subjective” supernatural experience I was compelled to become a Christian. I consider myself fairly intelligent. I am prosperous by worldly standards. There are many different types of intelligence. In my view there is little or no correlation between mental capacity and a correct belief system. I have very smart friends that are Muslims, Atheists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, etc.

I do not have “blind faith.” I know what faith is, where it comes from, how it grows and how to use it. Faith shows me what I could not see without it. I challenge my faith, and it grows as my understanding and knowledge increases.

Much evil has been done in the name of religion. But if you examine history you will find man has a great capacity for evil whether he is religious or not. What atheist utopia (past or present) would you want to live in? Remember eugenics? It was all the rage among secular humanists not too long ago. Yes, if we can just mercifully put those religious imbeciles out of their misery, we can all live in peace and harmony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all preaching to me...
Posted by: alterbeef on Feb 12, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of the book basically sums up why I generally don't like anyone who introduces themselves as an atheist. I don't care what you are, and the fact that you feel the need to buy a book of talking points seems pretty sad.

I don't want to be preached at about anything, religion, your stance against religion, a new mechanized system for easily chopping onions and tomatoes. None of it. I'm glad everyone realized religion is a waste of time, and I understand how proud and excited you must be to tell everyone about your discovery, but it can be just about as interesting to listen to you as it is to listen to a 3 year old describing how he can wipe his own ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust
Posted by: shhazam4 on Feb 12, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even the myth believers get it right in their funeral dirges. From dust we came and to dust we will return.

Why can't the weak minded get the fact that our sensory time is too short and precious to let myth believers decide how we live?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My short short selection of quotes
Posted by: Hirnlego on Feb 12, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." — Thomas Paine

"All Bibles are man-made." Thomas Edison

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak" George Santayana

“Although it is said that faith can move mountains, experience shows that dynamite works better.”

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." Ferdinand Magellan

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte (and to rob them)

"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them" - Dave Barry

"This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves." — Robert G. Ingersoll

"One of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural."
— James D. Watson, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe" -Hippocrates

"The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism" Sam Harris

>>
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed" - Martin Luther

"If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it" - William Jennings Bryan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus and Paul never existed
Posted by: Mandrake on Feb 12, 2007 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Found a great website: jesusneverexisted.com. I enjoyed very much reading all the ancient history and comparisons to the "history" of Jewish mythology during the "time of Christ".
Especially interesting is the acheological findings that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. I am not a historian, and am checking some of the sources listed, but it takes time, there are so many as opposed to the "evidence" presented by the religious folks.
Any historians or history buffs here that can shed any more light on this? I am new here, maybe this has been discussed before?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some atheist music....
Posted by: fcuker on Feb 13, 2007 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ijigg.com/songs/ABAF0AP0
http://www.ijigg.com/songs/A4FC7GPA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement