Letters to the Editor
-
Letters
I think Salon needs a new rule. You can't write more than one letter in response to an article unless you're a subscriber. It'll either cut down on the hysteria or increase the revenue.
-
re:letters
Oh I don't know about that - have you ever been over to Glenn Greewald's posts? Those letters are some of the best writers I've read on the internets!
cheers,
-
@ David
Good point, David. Let's let Glenn's blog be the exception.
-
clarification
Golden Boy, Jack et. all charge that the Koran has violent passages - and not like the Bible. From what I gathered at least. But this woman states that the Bible does have very violent passages and also states that slaves should stay slaves (and I suppose not be emancipated). I haven't read either texts but as an agnostic my interest is piqued now. Has anyone studied both these texts - from an intellectual POV (aka as an atheist with no bias) and can they shed some scholarly input? I'd be interested in hearing.
-
rank speculation
Morals are a product of evolution. Morals are simply successful ideas that have propagated, versus unsuccessful ideas that have been cast by the side of the road along the way.
This is nothing but rank speculation masquerading as "science"--as is the entire field of evolutionary psychology. There's not a shred of science to it. Nothing supported by experiment or data that can be independently verified, and nothing that can be falsified, a crucial element to true science. In fact, it commits the logical fallacy of using the premise to prove the conclusion.
Stop being so gullible.
-
Jonathan
"If you note, the post you are replying to mentioned *evidence* not *proof*."
Okay, then what "evidence" would you consider acceptable as far as proving the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental, supernatural force of creation?
"My personal opinion is that an omniscient and omnipotent God makes free will impossible.
An omniscient and omnipotent God already knows everything about you and everything that you will ever do. This implies that the course of your life is already set in stone so to speak."
The idea that you have no choice in your actions is not corollary to the idea that someone already knows the choice you will make.
For example: when I watch my favorite movie for the thousandth time, I already know what's going to happen. I had no hand in the direction of the film, but I have already seen it. The actors are not subject to my will by virtue of me knowing in advance what they're going to do.
I have to say that this is the weakest argument I hear atheists repeat over and over.
-
Why does everyone want an explanation?
Alex O'Neal's says that we cannot understand the universe without God, so we need to consider God as a possibility. But why is she so anxious to have an explanation? She says atheists ignore the psychological ramifications of their views, denial about their own ability to understand the universe.
I disagree. I am quite content not to have an explanation. She needs to answer the question, what is so lacking in my life that I need God to explain it away. Explanations without demonstrable, testable, physical effects are talk in the wind. I suggest a re-reaading of The Myth of Sisyphus, a book for grown-ups, who have put away the things of a child.
-
Idiots
Those that write for an read on Salon are too often in the fringe of folk who worship their own navel... most of the rest of the world, and virually any person with any monetary or personal power, believes and worships God.
So... if your goal is to wallow in your own glory of "knowing" that Christians and other believers are "deluded"- enjoy.
You can't really DO anything important. Name a powerful, elected Athiest in the U.S. None? Hm. Maybe you'll be the first.
Here's the deal. You can decry faith and gnash your teeth at God and everyone who has the temerity to see wonder in the world- but your effect stops here. On these pages... you can swirl into your own navels forever.
We, who Believe in a Greater God than you, will continue to decide on what rights you will and will not have.
-
Applying Pagels' analysis in the Gnostic Gospels to atheism
In her earlier work, Pagels showed why some of the known gospels of the times made it into the Christian canon and why others failed. According to Pagels, by the canonical gospels tend to promote the formation of communities of believers. The gnostic gospels emphasize individual enlightenment. The gnostic belief system is more natural for people who don't like to bond together in tightly knit communities.
The Christian canon succeeded, more or less, at bonding Christians together into a collective state. The gnostic gospels were rejected because individualized spirituality promotes atomization rather than community. And atomization was physically dangerous for Christians during the era where the canon was formed.
What bonds atheists together into communities? The issue of economic justice worked pretty well in the 20th century, but horrific mass murders resulted when atheists got together using Communism as their canon.
Communism is pretty much shot as anyone's canon today.
Atheists should learn from Pagels that it's not whether your idea is true or false that makes it endure. What matters is how your ideas can be used as the basis for functioning communities of believers.
That is the true fitness landscape on which you are competing with religion.
-
the pagans were right!
you have YOUR god, i have MINE. no problems. (from http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html here are the proselytizing problem children, Christianity: 2.1 billion, Islam: 1.3 billion; but who has a problem with the next 9? Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion, Hinduism: 900 million, Chinese traditional religion: 394 million, Buddhism: 376 million, primal-indigenous: 300 million, African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million, Sikhism: 23 million, Juche: 19 million, Spiritism: 15 million; the next in line, Judaism: 14 million *is* a problem, but only because it is a thumb in the eye for the first two.
-
however, when asked by my 5 year old niece whether i believed in god
i said, sometimes. because i wanted to be truthful. everyone believes in god, or something mystical or spiritual, *sometimes*. here's how would put it if she were older, "my heart believes, my head knows it's all nonsense - including the heart part".