Letters to the Editor
-
<sigh>
someone wrote:
And I would argue that atheism is just as much a faith a Christianity, with one exception. The atheist
&&&&&&&&&&
Let's see if I can get this right:
Atheism is NOT a faith. Period.
It's REALITY. There is no GOD.
There is no spaghetti monster.
There is nothing but us and this remarkable universe.
Atheism is no more a matter of faith than the three laws of thermodynamics.
Got it?
End of lesson.
-
Atheism and faith
I don't wholly agree with it, but I've always liked the oft-repeated saying that atheism is a faith in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
-
"A Guy" says that morals are not "evolved" as such
in fact, such an idea is "rank speculation". all of us wonder why some are good and some bad. in fact it's always more complicated. schindler (in shindler's list) was a womanizer, greedy and explotative. yet he went out of his way, and braved some danger, to save "his workers". clinton had his share of flaws and so does bush (more, in my opinion - but not viewed as such by many of the most religious). but let's say you can get consensus on what is good. how come the religious don't seem to be *better* but instead more unforgiving? and how come all brothers and sisters don't come out the same? is it any wonder that people "rankly speculate"?
-
There is a simple reason why reasonable people want
an explanation of the myth(s) of religion. Religion, and Christianity like any of the other religions, has been responsible for more carnage, death and wars than any other single factor in history. Religion is a means of manipulation, control and destruction of people since time began. It is more evil than anything in history.
-
A Guy...
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.
Wrong on two counts.
First, look up game theory: an entire branch of mathematics devoted to figuring out the best outcome individual players can achieve given a particular strategy. Look up "tit-for-tat" in particular: turns out that when a less-than-zero-sum game is played in which multiple turns are allowed, the best strategy is to support the other players so everyone advances as a whole faster. Game theory provides the support to evolutionary psychology just as statistics supports the social sciences.
Second, about those social sciences: they are science too. Psychology, sociology, history, archeology, cognitive science, economics, and anthropology are all studies into explaining existing phenomena with their own methods for testing those explanations. They also have predictive value: given a certain set of circumstances most people are likely to do X rather than Y.
The idea that religion has a natural explanation has support in biology, cognitive science, history (duh), and psychology.
The idea that a supreme intelligent being that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and ultimate goodness, and has a Son who was was sent in corporeal form to tell us about Him -- THAT is rank speculation.
-
an explanation of the myth(s) of religion. Religion, and Christianity like any of the other religions, has been responsible for more carnage, death and wars than any other single factor in history. Religion is a means of manipulation, control and destruction of people since time began. It is more evil than anything in history.
See, it was in response to this common argument that the "three biggest genocides of the last century were perpetuated by Nazis and Communists who were avowed athiests" point was made.
No one is saying that Athiesm is to be blamed for genocide or Nazis or Communists, just that they happened to be Athiests. And they didn't happen to be Christians or monotheists or any religion at all. Basically, all those mass killings? Not the fault of theists. So quit saying the theists are the source of all the evil in the world.
Thanks!
-
And...
If you were a king and you wanted to invade the neighbors and take their stuff, and you wanted to get all the peasants riled up and willing to die for you, would you say unto them
"I really want that harbor and that gold. Go get it for me. You'll still be a peasant, but I'll be MUCH better off. Thanks ever so."
or would you try somthing like,
"Go smote the neighbors for they are ungodly and you are holy!"
I'm going to guess the latter. Is it because of the faith that you did this or because you are a greedy mofo?
Is is the "fault" (or Christianity or any other faith) that leaders can be greedy and manipulative any more than its the "fault" of not believing in a diety that the Nazis and Communist Governments slaughtered millions?
-
darwinian_mechanist
Please elaborate on exactly how "brain chemicals", if I may borrow your highly technical nomenclature, account for human intellect, emotions, and sense of the divine.
Also, how do you know that there is no God? How exactly is that "reality" manifested in the span of a single human life? Do you know why we're here? Do you know why the universe exists? Do you believe that "why..." is a pointless question?
Please grace me with more of your enlightened smugness.
-
StoryLine Logic
Problems with the gospel of Judas:
1) It is unnecessary: Jesus was a wanted man, with a price on his head. JC did not need Judas to betray him;If JC's intent was capture, he need only start eating at a few restaurants in Jerusalem and have someone recognize him and turn him in for $$$. Why complicate matters by dragging his good buddy Judas into it?
2) It is illogical: Even if you beleive Jesus is just a great teacher, there is nothing in his great teaching that says "make your brother/trusted friend a patsy" or "falsely incriminate yourself by betraying your teacher at his request" or "maintain your guilt by suppressing the truth about your innocence" and so on; its balony to think that JC would consider such hypocracy and that Judas would indulge it.
3) It is universal: All of the disciples betrayed Jesus, not just Judas.
4) It is late: The dating of the synoptic gospels is much earlier than the Judas version. Some portions of the gospel of Mark are now being debated to be based on written testimony that pre-dates the crucificition (e.g.the temptation account in the desert).The Judas gospel is 2nd century.The earlier, the more reliable.
5) It is commentary: the G of J is not history but "advice", philosophical musings mixed with some parables and argumentation. N.T. Wright says much of it is the pointless ramblings of an unwell mind. The gospels are "news" - Jesus did this, Jesus went there, Jesus did that - Jesus said blah blah blah.