think the alleged New Atheists were brash and strident and unacademic and pithy and polemical and for the most part they got their pitch right. — Tom Storm
I could go through it all line by line, but life’s too short. — Wayfarer
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing". — Peter Higgs, quoted in The Guardian
once religion is dead (at least for the West, it is), whence come ethics? — Olivier5
They were just a rehash of Comte's tired positivism. Their pitch was wrong in the sense that it was an ineffective caricature. I am not against caricatures. — Olivier5
Not a single Muslim fundamentalist, or Jewish or Christian for that matter, was ever deterred or convinced by their pro domo arguments. On the contrary, I suspect that their aggressive form of no-godism put off quite a few well-meaning folks among their audience. — Olivier5
More importantly, there are political consequences to the death of the god(s): the French revolutionary terror, Stalin, Hitler, are reminders that men need ethics and that historically their ethics was derived from religion. So once religion is dead (at least for the West, it is), whence come ethics? — Olivier5
That’s the salient point. When I did interact on the Dawkins forum, I asked them, OK what do you have to replace it? Evolutionary biology? What are the implications of that? Even Dawkins, when asked, agrees that Darwinian principles are a terrible basis for any kind of morals philosophy. (When I saw him acknowledge that on a TV debate my respect for him went up a notch.) — Wayfarer
As the progressives have lost their vision for the future, and turned into managers of the status quo, — Echarmion
[Dawkins] generally does not recommend Darwinism when it comes to ethics. Usually a simple minded utilitarianism. — Tom Storm
The point is what religious ethical system do you recommend and why? — Tom Storm
How do people come to agreement about matters like capital punishment, abortion, gun ownership, the role of women, gay rights, human rights, etc? — Tom Storm
certain theists keep trying to change laws and politics to suit their unfounded beliefs — Tom Storm
But one implies the other. — Wayfarer
'Unfounded' according to what criterion? That no double-blind, peer-reviewed papers exist on them? — Wayfarer
But as the critics of the new atheists point out, many of the greatest crimes against humanity of the twentieth century were committed by atheists. — Wayfarer
I recommend that individuals deeply scrutinise that question and try and come to the best possible decision. — Wayfarer
45% think it is necessary to have faith in a God in order to be moral. — Banno
The unfortunate fact in Western culture is that much of the best of ‘pagan philosophy’ was incorporated into Christian theology by the Greek-speaking, early Christian theologians. So the rejection of Christianity often amounts, in effect, to the rejection of many elements of traditional philosophy along with it. — Wayfarer
I've met a number of people who were fundamentalists and de-converted following exposure to Hitchens, Harris and co, amongst other things. — Tom Storm
Religion's consequences: witch-trials, shunning of gay people, anti-semitism, pogroms, Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of men of learning, slavery and numerous wars. The Nazi's had significant support from Christians and even had 'God with Us' on army belt buckles. — Tom Storm
Scentistic category error, Wayf. C'mon, even you know better ...The morality that is implicit in Darwinian theory is always best described by what Herbert Spencer says - 'survival of the fittest'. — Wayfarer
'Evolution' applies to groups, not individuals - genes, species & ecologies (Darwin), not organisms & persons (Spenser) - the latter merely expressing traits adapted to proliferating the former. — 180 Proof
The rejection of the judeo-christian tradition by the Nazis is what allowed them to do what they did — Olivier5
GOTT MIT UNS on the belt buckles of the Wehrmacht forces convincingly suggests otherwise. And Austro-Bavaria, which was the heartland of Nazism – was then, as it still is today, conservatively Catholic – and contributed a very great share of its sons brothers & fathers to the Nazi cause. Considered in historical context, fascism means nothing if not right-wing Catholicism (e.g. Franco's Falange, Mussolini's Fasci, Greek National Union, Belgian Christus Rex, etc). Let's forget the several centuries old bloody legacy of the very "judeo-christian" Holy Inquisition, antisemitic pogroms, forced conversions, slave trade ... all with the blessing and instigation of Holy Mother Church for "the greater glory of Our Lord". Deus fuckin' volt.The rejection of the judeo-christian tradition by the Nazis is what allowed them to do what they did. — Olivier5
Centuries during which the Church was more often than not trying to protect Jews from the greed of the powerful and the prejudice of the masses.don't see how you can argue that when the Nazi's drew on centuries of Christianity's antisemitism even Martin Luther's well known fulminations against Jews. — Tom Storm
So, since China is in majority atheist and their people support a ruthless and racist dictatorship, it reflects poorly on atheism?Not to mention a 99% Christian nation supported Hitler.
Just because warmongers often brandish religious reasons does not mean they are motivated by religion. The Nazis used Martin Luther to rally the masses, instrumentally, like they used Darwin or Wagner. It does not follow that their ideology was inherently Lutheran, Darwinian or Wagnerian.even Martin Luther's well known fulminations against Jews
GOTT MIT UNS on the belt buckles of the Wehrmacht forces convincingly suggests otherwise. — 180 Proof
At the time of the completion of German unification in 1871, the imperial standard bore the motto Gott mit uns on the arms of an Iron Cross.[4] Imperial German 3 and 5 mark silver and 20 mark gold coins had Gott mit uns inscribed on their edge.
German soldiers had Gott mit uns inscribed on their belt buckles in the First World War.[5] The slogan entered the mindset on both sides; in 1916 a cartoon was printed in the New York Tribune captioned "Gott Mit Uns!", showing "a German officer in spiked helmet holding a smoking revolver as he stood over the bleeding form of a nurse. It symbolized the rising popular demand that the United States shed its neutrality".[6]
In June 1920 George Grosz produced a lithographic collection in three editions entitled Gott mit uns. A satire on German society and the counterrevolution, the collection was swiftly banned. Grosz was charged with insulting the army, which resulted in a 300 German Mark fine and the destruction of the collection.[7]
During the Second World War Wehrmacht soldiers once again wore this slogan on their belt buckles,[8] as opposed to members of the Waffen SS, who wore the motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').[9] After the war the motto was also used by the Bundeswehr and German police. It was replaced with "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" ("Unity and Justice and Freedom") in 1962 (police within the 1970s),
You might as well have a thread 'belief in God as necessary for eating cheese'. — Bartricks
Meine Ehre heißt Treue
My point is rather that, now that "God is dead", we need a secular form (or several) of ethics. — Olivier5
Why? Law in an orderly country like the USA takes care of the lost religious ethics. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.