Sam Harris has a great article in today's L.A. Times: '10 Myths - and 10 Truths About Atheism'. he goes through the most often heard accusations about atheists, and sets them to rest in a frank, honest, and straightforward manner. A good one, in response to 'atheism is dogmatic':
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
6 comments:
It's funny that an article aimed at clearing up misconceptions about atheism would contain so many misconceptions about religion. I wish I had time to get into each one.
Well, Sam Harris is about as atheistic as they come. I don't agree with everything he says either, I mostly admire him for pushing the concept that peoples religious beliefs should not be given a free ride, and should be open to criticism in the public debate, because currently, 'you can't criticize a person's faith is the current norm. When people are using religious beliefs to justify passing legislation, for example, there is nothing wrong with expecting them to provide real evidence for what they are proposing. That said, I would say that what he says doesn't apply to all religions in general but is definitely true about fundamentalism.
Thanks for stopping by!
It is, indeed, sad to see JD become such a pussy. What's up with this nonsense, dude? Or has your ass-kissing at GMD derailed your mind?
How am I being a pussy, because I didn't attack Charity? Don't work that way, dude, anymore than I'm 'kissing ass' at GMD. I disagree with most of what Charity believes as well as a lot of what's posted on GMD. I just don't need to personally attack people, that's all. Hardly makes me a pussy. C'mon, dude.
Nominating Odum to fill the seat that may be vacated by Brooks is ass-kissing, my friend, especially when you then declare out of the other side of your mouth that you disagree with much of what's on his sleepy little site. Don't worry, though, you're not alone in your liberalish ninnyism. In fact, you're running with a large crowd of cowards who talk tough but fold up when it comes to standing up for real justice and real social change. You can currently find this crowd cooing over Obama while ignoring the fact that Obama and his mainstream Dem-friends have completely shat upon their anti-war desires. Whatever.
Um, that Odum-Brooks thing was a joke, as in 'no-way-in-hell'. And I certainly am not on the Obamarama thing. That's Baruth's trip, not mine. I think Obama's just as bad as Hillary.
I don't really get how you're equating my civility with Odum as weak, or ass-kissing or whatever. I certainly don't need him to do what I do, and I don't agree with him on a lot of things. But I don't hate the guy, either. Whatever.
Post a Comment