Book critiquing atheism wins Archbishop's prize

[rug]

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has awarded the 2011 Michael Ramsey prize to Atheist Delusions, by David Bentley Hart.

The book, said Dr Williams, "takes no prisoners in its response to fashionable criticisms of Christianity."

"Needless to say the honour is very great," said Hart in response. "For me, it lies especially in the name of the prize, as I have such a high regard for Michael Ramsey , and in its being conferred by the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whose work is among the richest theology being written in English today."

In the book, Hart outlines how Christianity transformed the ancient world in ways we may have forgotten: bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great dignity on human beings, subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society, and elevating charity above all virtues.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14861

[Jim__]

1. There's an interesting review of this book on Amazon.

An excerpt:

...
Narrative #1: The Christian Version. "The world was lost in pagan immorality and darkness; man enslaved man and man dominated woman. Then, with the Birth of Christ, came the Divine Light, and the world was forever transformed. The barbarian, knuckle-dragging rapists of Europe were baptised and brought to Jesus, and the world got much, much better. Even today, there is no other known source of European civilization and we reject it at our peril." One of the most popular novels of all time, "Quo Vadis," is in this narrative tradition.

Narrative #2: The Modernist Version. "We had the Glory of Greece and the Splendor of Rome, but alas a bunch of superstitious people completely replaced the glories of Paganism with the knuckle-dragging ignorance of Blind Faith. The result was the Dark Ages, which only ended when Heroic Forces restored the classics of Greece to a benighted Europe. Then came the Enlightenment, and Democracy, and all manner of good things, once the Europeans cast off the shackles of Faith." Arthur C. Clarke and many other modern thinkers followed this narrative.

Whether you approve of my "summaries" or not, the point is that they are both tremendous oversimplifications and they are both therefore silly. If you want to be a propagandist, OK, take one of those simple-minded narratives. But if you really want to understand the history of Western Civilization, you need much more information.

...

Things like this make the book under review invaluable, and there is one larger discussion I would like to share with you. It concerns Galileo, and the Myth of Galileo -- apparently launched by the great hypocrite Brecht. Basically, all you need to know is that "everything you think you know about Galileo is false," most particularly the idea that Galileo and other modern astronomers were engaged in some sort of running war with the dogmatic Catholic Church. Not at all. In the end, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton were engaged in a much larger and more difficult battle: they were overturning the dead hand of Aristotle, which had stifled European science for thousands of years. Newton's final victory was the collapse of Hellenistic "science" --- such as it was.

more ...

[rug]

2. Interesting review. Thanks for the link.

[darkstar3]

3. So the book says nothing new, from what I can tell.

It's the standard "look at the good we've done and realize you can't criticize us thanks to it" defense, with a bit of revisionism and a whole lot of straw thrown in for good measure. The title itself isn't even original...

[rug]

4. I'm sure you've read it.

[darkstar3]

5. The various reviews were quite enough.

[Deep13]

68. I can't read them all!

Why don't I waste a few weeks reading Atlas Shrugged or the latest Ann Coulter opus while I'm at it.

[Silent3]

6. Bear shits in woods. Film at 11.

None other than the Archbishop of Canterbury himself? Praising a book with the great courage to speak out against atheism? Next thing you know, conservative Republicans are going to be speaking kindly about Milton Friedman.

[cleanhippie]

7. Better title: Book critiquing not-believing-what-we-do wins archbishops prize.

Am I supposed to be impressed that a religious institution has heaped praise on yet ANOTHER derision of people who do not believe in the supernatural?

Guess what? I'm not.

[humblebum]

10. When someone calls out a group that thrives on the constant "derision of people"

who are believers, then I applaud that action.

[laconicsax]

12. Staying classy, I see. n/t

[sudopod]

14. When someone calls out a group that thrives on the constant "derision of people"

who are unbelievers, then I applaud that action.

[Angry Dragon]

15. It is shame that you miss the point................

[Goblinmonger]

20. He's a pretty big point misser. n/t

[humblebum]

22. My point is perfectly clear. RADICAL atheism needs to be challenged

for their actions of hate and "derision."

[cleanhippie]

23. Bwahahahahahahahaha!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[laconicsax]

29. Looks like you could use some reinforcements.

Here's 74th regiment, ready to help.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Angry Dragon]

24. I have not seen radical atheism

Could you give me 3 examples of this??

Not trying to be snarky or anything just trying to understand your point of view

[LeftishBrit]

25. What is RADICAL atheism?

Atheism just means not believing in God. How can that be radical or non-radical? Radical to me means wanting extensive change, especially in a left-wing direction. You sound almost as though you think that 'radicals' can *make* God cease to exist though He had existed previously. If there is a God, then by definition He is not vulnerable to radicals.

As regards rudeness: people of any viewpoint can be rude and derisive; it has little to do with the radicalism or otherwise of the viewpoint. I have known rude centrists, and very polite radicals, in the political sense.

[humblebum]

26. I don't think radical atheism needs much explanation. It is

the anti-christian/religious books and movies and exhortations from those such as Hitchens, who called for "ridcule, hatred, and contempt" to be shown towards religion. And it is this and whole lot more. There certainly is nothing wrong with being an atheist. That is your right. But radical atheism, or "NEW" atheism, etc. is defined by bigotry.

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

[skepticscott]

30. You still can't grasp the difference between

atheism and anti-theism, can you? It's not a hard concept, really...

[kwassa]

31. so, this group is full of anti-theists?

That explains a lot.

[LeftishBrit]

46. I am not anti-theist; I am pro-secularist

I do not want people of any religion pushing their 'morality' into law. I do not want people in power implying that secularists and atheists are bad for society. I do not want them smearing and attempting (sometimes successfully) to defeat secularist, socially liberal political candidates. I do not want 'pro-life' groups harrassing women outside when they go to clinics to have abortions. I do not want people using their religion to 'keep women in their place'. I do not want politicians treating unemployment and benefit 'dependency' as moral sins. Etc.

I do not think that ALL or even most religious people go in for this sort of right-wing control-freakery. In fact, in the UK it's a distinct minority and they often rail at the mainstream church leaders for not being right-wing enought. Nor is it *only* religious people who do this sort of thing; other ideologies can have the same effect. Ceaucescu suppressed women's reproductive rights for nationalist, not religious, reasons. Nevertheless, some religious groups do attack atheists as immoral, and attempt to impose religious 'morality' into law and generally endorse and impose right-wing policies. Places like Iran are extreme in this respect; America has far less of it, but it's still a serious problem; the UK has far less but still too much!

So there are many of us who are not anti-theist, but nevertheless are strongly against anti-atheists and the religious right!

[skepticscott]

57. This group has a lot of posters

who speak out against the abuses and corruption of organized religion (or at least certain flavors of it), and who believe that, on balance, religion is and has been more of a detriment than a benefit to society as a whole. Does that surprise or dismay you?

[kwassa]

115. Not at all. What does dismay, but not surprise, is the vitriol

directed by some atheists on DU against anyone who is a believer.

[laconicsax]

120. Could you give some examples of that?

Your claim gets made quite often, but without examples. Are you sure you aren't confusing honesty with vitriol?

[kwassa]

124. Invisible sky people.

That is derisive as can be.

Vitriol. Intended to inflame.

[darkstar3]

129. No, derisive as can be would be FAR worse.

It would get deleted. What you're complaining about is the honest expression of someone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours.

[kwassa]

146. It is not an honest expression of opinion. It is words chosen to inflame.

That is why the phrase is repeated over and over.

[darkstar3]

165. Would you prefer "Secret Santa in the sky"?

That's closer to my honest opinion than "sky daddy".

[laconicsax]

131. Wow, that's as derisive as you can imagine? You must be incredibly thin-skinned.

I can think of several expressions that are far more derisive off the top of my head and would almost certainly get deleted if I posted them.

Invisible sky people (or the more common sky-daddy) is just a flippant way of describing what many people believe to be the nature of God--an invisible patriarch who lives in the sky/above the clouds. If that's the most derisive comment possible, you may want to consider staying off the Internet or getting a slightly thicker skin.

[kwassa]

147. It isn't flippant, it is insulting.

and one poster who readily used it had many posts deleted because I became fed up and alerted on it.

I am strictly talking about the climate on DU, not the world, not the Internet. I've been on the Internet since the early 90s, and nothing surprises me about what assholes people can become when they believe they are anonymous and untouchable.

[laconicsax]

152. Yet you call bullying, hazing, loss of business, death threats, etc. "trivial."

Maybe you should consider how your privileged status colors your perception.

[kwassa]

153. Bullying happens every day, for many reasons.

It is a big problem, and needs to be addressed. The bullying event you described was because you were Jewish, not atheist.

I am not remotely convinced that atheists suffer vast discrimination in this country.

[laconicsax]

157. Of course you aren't convinced. You dismiss reality in favor of your nice comfortable fantasy.

You explained your fantasy world, and as soon as three people challenged it, you dismissed our experiences as "trivial."

You remind me of the rich, white man who can't believe that women and minorities suffer from discrimination. It must be nice to be among the privileged.

Oh, and I included some of my experiences from when I was Jewish because they directly contradict your belief that no one cares about religious affiliation. Wake up! Open your eyes!

[kwassa]

158. Excuse me.

The fact that three people here challenged me proves nothing.

I am not rich or privileged. I am white. So are you. Now, if you want to talk about white privilege ... oh wait. We both have that.

I ask for specifics from you, I get nothing. Why should I believe you?

Another specific question: where were you bullied as a Jew, and in what year?

[darkstar3]

166. You are a white, straight, Christian male in the US.

You are most certainly privileged. The fact that you flat out refuse to see it when it is spelled out for you in the clearest terms only shows simple psychology at work.

[kwassa]

175. Shows nothing, actually.

You claim an argument without presenting it.

[laconicsax]

169. You seem to view yourself as entitled to details of my personal life. Quelle arrogance.

You most certainly are privileged. You're white, and from what I've read on this forum, straight and male. If you don't think that straight white men enjoy an abundance of privilege in this society, I have a bridge to sell you.

[kwassa]

174. Whatever. You make a statement, you won't substantiate it.

Hollows out your argument.

[laconicsax]

180. Uh huh. I must have made it all up.

That can be the only explanation why I don't feel compelled to share details of my personal life with someone on a public message board.

[LeftishBrit]

136. THAT'S as derisive as can be?

Actually, I don't use that phrase. But I would say that it's a lot less derisive than being told that your country is 'the epicentre of the culture of death'. It's a lot less derisive than being told that the defeat of the MP whom you voted for, is the 'best result of the election' because he was a secularist. It's a lot less derisive than statements by a widely-read journalist (Melatie Phillips) that:

'To be secular is to embrace certain values and beliefs. Instead of neutrality there is an attempt to get rid of religion and to promote something else instead. It has produced a ‘me society’, a society of great selfishness and increasing cruelty and brutality.'



And these are just a few recent examples from Britain, which is MUCH more accepting of secularism and atheism than many other countries. How about the derisiveness of Bush 1 saying that atheists can't be full citizens of their country? How about the slogan:

Concerned Student: Why do you allow so much violence in schools?
God: I'm not allowed in schools.


How about the derisiveness of Jerry Falwell's comments affter 9-11:

"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

[kwassa]

145. I am talking about derisiveness on DU, not the world at large.

Jerry Falwell is a nut job. So what?

[LeftishBrit]

173. 'So what?' Who has more influence on politics and public life? The leaders of Christian Right groups

or some anonymous poster on DU?

The point is that those DU-ers who get snarky about religion are in most cases reacting to long experience of harsh treatment of atheists and 'wrong' believers, and/or of religious right-wingers' enforcing discrimination against gays, women, etc.

ETA: And even on DU there are some attacks on atheists and secularists that are far worse than speaking of 'invisible sky people'; e.g. just a few have included: 'Secular "fundies"! What can you do with them? Other than deride them mercilessly'; 'Half-witted materialist scientismificist poseurs'; and perhaps worst of all, telling a poster that because (s)he is an atheist: "Sorry, but you don't count".

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

34. That's rather much of a default reply, isn't it. Yes, I know the difference.

We've discussed it here for years.

[darkstar3]

36. Clearly you do not.

[humblebum]

48. Another empty retort. NT

[skepticscott]

56. Your attempt to characterize any form of atheism

as "radical" clearly shows that you don't. If you wanted to talk about radical anti-theism, then you might have a hope of making sense. But you don't.

[humblebum]

60. I clearly distinguish between simple atheism and radical atheism.nt

"There certainly is nothing wrong with being an atheist. That is your right. But radical atheism, or "NEW" atheism, etc. is defined by bigotry." Take it as you see fit.

[immoderate]

76. We LOVE the theist. We hate the religion. I also hate injustice.

--imm

[LeftishBrit]

45. In other words, it's OK to be an atheist so long as you don't discuss it or actively promote it?

Something like 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'?

[humblebum]

65. It is OK to be anything you want to be, but

when atheists are purposely encouraging "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" as Hitchens does - then it's time to take notice. Ridicule has been deemed as acceptable and encouraged by many atheists. That crosses the line and it needs to be called.

[darkstar3]

66. What line?

[humblebum]

74. That one. nt

[darkstar3]

75. Which one? The imaginary one in your head?

[humblebum]

87. No. The one you keep tripping over. nt

[darkstar3]

88. If you can't define it, best leave it alone.

[humblebum]

94. It's hard to see it with you laying face down on top of it.nt

[darkstar3]

97. Your creativity is lacking, and you do nothing to express your point here.

Either there is a proverbial line, or there is not, and if there is, you should be able to define it

[humblebum]

107. it's amazing how you continue to speak so clearly with your face to the floor. nt

[darkstar3]

108. As I suspected.

Goodbye. For now.

[humblebum]

112. I like how you used the "for now" thing. Usually it's good bye foreve and then

BOOM! it's a new day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. Ridicule has been deemed as acceptable and encouraged by Stephen Colbert

Jon Stewart, and thousands of comedians, political and non-political, before them. Now you're saying it's a bad thing and must be stopped? Or is it that atheists aren't allowed to ridicule, while theists are?

[humblebum]

89. Huge difference between comical sarcastic criticism and ridicule, IMO. nt

[LeftishBrit]

189. I don't know about that. I think one person's comical sarcastic criticism is often another person's

ridicule.

[kwassa]

116. Have Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert ridiculed all religious belief?

I was not aware of that.

Can you point me towards such statements by them?

[darkstar3]

130. Google "This Week in God."

[kwassa]

195. Don't need to, I've watched it for years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. Are you saying some religious belief should get a special exemption from normal criticism?

As darkstar3 points out, those 2 comedians have ridiculed a fair amount of religious belief over the years; but my point is that religious beliefs are just as fair a target for ridicule as anything else - politics, entertainment, fashion and so on.

[kwassa]

194. I agree.

I don't think that what I am complaining about is normal criticism.

[darkstar3]

197. I think what you're complaining about is "trivial."

[kwassa]

199. I have no doubt that you do.

[darkstar3]

200. LOL. U MAD?

[kwassa]

32. I would call it dogmatic atheism.

There is nothing particularly radical about atheism.

There are those, however, for whom atheism is a cause to be proselytized. Evangelized.

[darkstar3]

35. And the dogma would be?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dogma&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=00

[kwassa]

38. That God doesn't exist, that believers are deluded individuals who

believe in invisible sky people, blah, blah, blah.

But I was talking about "dogmatic", not "dogma".

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

I would say that this is an accurate description of some of the atheist contributors on this board.

[darkstar3]

40. So the expression of an opinion is now a dogma?

You and I and any fifth graders reading this forum are fully aware of the religious implications of the word "dogmatic" and its root "dogma". You are simply finding another way to refer to atheism as a religion. Your opinion is that this religion's central and only tenet is that "there is no God."

Of course, your opinion is wrong.

Atheists lack belief in any deities, as I'm sure you've read several times before. The problem you have with atheistic statements regarding your God (note the capital G) is that atheists are not afraid to state flatly that "he" cannot exist, and he can't. The God (note the capital G) that you and many others believe in, when clearly defined in Biblical or more recent terms, is a logical contradiction and very often a violation of physical laws.

What you fail to understand is the distinction between this rejection of a single God (note the capital G), whose very definition makes his existence impossible, and a flat statement that no gods can possibly exist. As I've written many times before, I don't reject the possibility of some supreme being. I don't reject the possibility of many a la the Q Continuum. I just have no reason to believe in those possibilities.

And my opinion, or lack of belief as it were, is not dogma.

[kwassa]

117. You are creating a strawman, of course

Good luck with that.

When you are ready to deal with what I actually said, let me know.

[darkstar3]

128. Poorly dodged.

I dealt with precisely what you said, and addressed the idea of dogmatism. That you didn't like it matters not a whit to me.

[kwassa]

151. No, you attempted a pointless diversion.

Stick to the topic.

[darkstar3]

162. You were the one who chose his words poorly.

Now that you have been educated on how poor the choice was, I expect...nothing different.

[kwassa]

176. Educated?

I used the word dogmatic, and you define dogma and argue against that word.

Sorry. Argue against dogmatic. I know you can't do it.

[skepticscott]

78. We offer theists every opportunity

to provide credible evidence to back up their claims, and to convince us that their god actually exists. In fact, we practically beg them for it. And we even tell them what types of evidence will satisfy us, so they don't have to feel like they're aiming for a moving target. Does that sound like dogmatism to you, or rational inquiry?

[kwassa]

118. You miss the point

My point is about behavior, not belief, or lack thereof.

I actually find it quite amusing that some who claim most stridently a lack of belief behave like the most ardent believers of all.

[LeftishBrit]

47. There are those who believe that ANYTHING is a cause to be evangelized

People can be dogmatic about all kinds of things: what clothes people should wear; what they should or shouldn't eat; what music they should like; etc.

Excessive preachiness can be irritating; but not more so about atheism than anything else; and as far as I'm concerned, religious preachiness is only more than mildly irritating if it's combined with a wish to impose religious morality on society, or to treat non-believers as not only wrong but inferior citizens.

[Deep13]

100. Maybe you can give us some examples.

What actions has "radical atheism" taken. Seems to me all its adherents do is sit around and talk and insist on equal rights of expression.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Atheists do not thrive on 'constant derision' of believers. They just don't believe.

Sometimes the hostility of some groups of believers to atheists, and the tendency of certain believers to support right-wing causes, causes the latter to snap, and reply with snark. It may not be admirable, but considering that atheists in America have only *one* open representative in Congress; that a president regarded as comparatively moderate stated explicitly that atheists cannot be regarded as full citizens of America; that in some parts of America the political pressures of right-wing churches make it impossible to elect a Democrat let alone an atheist to political office; that in some places atheists are ostracized and treated as immoral and as bad influences on society - I am not surprised that they sometimes get pissed off.

The encroachments of the religious right, and especially the political 'pro-life' movement, are getting bad enough in the UK, but probably still not one-tenth as bad as in many parts of the USA.

I have no problem with religion or religious people; I DO have problems with political anti-secularism and the religious right - of any religion.

[kwassa]

33. Some atheists definitely do thrive on the derision of believers.

It can be found everyday on DU. In multiple forums.

[darkstar3]

37. Are you feeling derided? Perhaps you should stop swatting others on the nose...

[kwassa]

39. Are you giving advice?

Perhaps you should stop.

Glass houses, and all that.

[darkstar3]

41. I'm not worried about my house.

I am, however, tired of being told that my opinion has no place on this board. I am tired of being told that religion should be afforded some special distance from criticism.

Your God is on our money, in our Pledge, injected into our national pastime, written into our media, thanked by weatherman during tornadoes and national atheletes during professional play, and melded into every speech offered by an American President since before I was born.

But my opinion, that's persecution, derision, hateful oppression. My desire for my Constitutional rights to be respected is, in your eyes, nothing more than an attempt to strip you of yours.

Fucking spare me.

[rug]

49. "persecution, derision, hateful oppression"

Must be awful.

[trotsky]

51. Not suprised to see you chime in, enjoying your majority status.

One day the tables will probably turn - Christians won't be the majority anymore. I wonder how you would feel if it were "Allah" instead of "God" on that coin. Suck it up!

[rug]

52. I guess my only choice then would be to burn all my money.

Fight the power!

[trotsky]

53. Fuck the minority! Hell yeah!

If they were cool, they'd be the majority, duh!

[LeftishBrit]

55. No. But...

hopefully as a progressive, you would not call taxation 'theft' or sneer at poor people for being 'feckless' or state that their needs are 'privileges and not rights'.

You would not say that people from ethnic minorities are 'oppressing white people' if they demand equal rights, or call those who want equal rights for women 'feminazis'.

It's not a question of 'burning' all your privileges where you happen to be in the majority, but of accepting that there ARE disadvantaged minority groups, and that their protesting, even if they sometimes do so rudely, is NOT equivalent to a majority depriving a minority of its rights.

[rug]

62. No, I would not.

Nor would I equate self-described adherents to an intellectual conclusion with people experiencing the effects of racism, sexism or classism.

[LeftishBrit]

72. That depends on whether they in fact suffer discrimination as a result of their beliefs...

and this varies from country to country, place to place.

In England nowadays, it's generally only intermittent and minor. Though imposition of religiously-based social conservativism is a danger even here.

In some countries, you could be killed for unbelief or the 'wrong' beliefs.

In between, there are places (including some in America, as I gather), where you could be socially ostracized and denied jobs for atheism or even just for not attending the predominant church in the area; where churches can have a strong influence on electoral votes and sometimes political representation; where non-Christians can be treated as though they are inferior citizens. I have actually seen American leaflets in the past explicitly stating that anyone who doesn't want to be 'under God', should leave America.

It is not surprising that non-believers would resent this.

[rug]

84. Their beliefs or their conclusions?

I am led to understand atheism is not based on belief. I may be wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

93. OK, lack of belief...

The point is that if a majority use their power to discriminate against a minority, they cannot be surprised if members of the minority are sometimes rude to them or about them, and they should not equate this with persecution or even bullying.

Atheists don't suffer discrimination everywhere, but in many places they undoubtedly do. As do religious minorites at the hands of the majority.

Do you honestly NOT think that religious discrimination exists, just as (if perhaps less consistently than) racial discrimination does, and that it is applied both to atheists and to religious minorities?

[rug]

95. Religious discrimination that is applied to atheists?

That's an interesting concept. I'll think about it.

[skepticscott]

96. Discrimination by a religious majority because of failure

to believe in a certain way (their way) is religious discrimination, regardless of who it is directed towards.

Shouldn't be a hard concept at all.

[rug]

102. Fine. Atheists are victims of religious discrimination.

As are many other minority religious groups.

That was easy.

[darkstar3]

103. The hard part seems to be admitting which group is the persecutor.

I'll give you a hint, it's usually, and in this case definitely, the majority...

[rug]

104. But is the persecution religious persecution?

[darkstar3]

105. One religious majority persecutes people who are not members of that religious majority.

How could it not be religious persecution?

[LeftishBrit]

110. The motive for the persecution is religious, so yes

In any case, it's persecution of a minority by a majority. The semantics of what sort of persecution it should be called is a secondary issue.

I'm reminded of attempts to deflect from or deny other sorts of prejudice by arguing about the semantics; e.g. there can't be 'antisemitism' because other people besides Jews are Semites, or there can't be 'Islamophobia' or 'homophobia' because those who practice these forms of prejudice often feel disapproval or anger rather than fear.

[LeftishBrit]

111. OK., and in all cases it's a bad thing.

All discrimination against minority groups is bad.

And the fact that a minority group member may sometimes respond to discrimination with rude remarks about the powerful majority is neither equivalent to, nor a justification of, the discrimination. Whatever the basis of such discrimination.

I am reminded, as in several other situations, of the old American children's rhyme:

Way down south where bananas grow,
A grasshopper trod on an elephant's toe.
The elephant said with tears in his eyes,
'Pick on somebody your own size!'

[LeftishBrit]

98. Do you not agree ...

that there are people who are ostracized, denied job opportunities, and even in some parts of the world physically threatened, injured or killed because they are atheists?

Just as may happen to religious minorities?

Both the atheist and the Muslim in the American Bible Belt may be socially ostracized and discriminated against for jobs. At a worse extreme, both the atheist and the Christian in Iran may be imprisoned or even executed.

Is it less objectionable when it's done to an atheist than to a member of a religious minority? Surely it is the same thing: rejecting or punishing a person for not adhering to the prevailing religion.

[rug]

101. Trade unionists, socialists, nationalists and groups of all stripes habe been persecuted.

But I would not call it it persecution based on a belief system.

If what you're saying is that atheists are being persecuted due to their denial of religious beliefs, then you are placing them in the context of a religious dispute, unlike the other groups you mention.

I'm fine with that. It's probably a more apt description.

[kwassa]

119. The ostracism is highly exaggerated.

Speaking as an American, the vast majority of the country cares very little about religion. Football and shopping are the most popular use of Sundays by far. The true religions.

There are certain areas within the country that are culturally conservative and subscribe, generally, to a fundamentalist Christian view. There certainly could be social pressure and ostracism in these areas, though it would be illegal. Overall, this is a very secular country.

There is no major metropolitan area in this country where it is difficult to be an atheist, and in most smaller cities, either. People simply don't care enough.

[laconicsax]

123. Spoken like a true member of the majority. n/t

[kwassa]

125. and what persecution have you suffered?

[laconicsax]

133. I'm glad you asked.

When I was Jewish, I was hazed and bullied for it in school (in one of these 'apathetic' metropolitan areas no less). As an atheist, I've suffered death threats (in a smaller city) and intimidation (in another one of these 'apathetic' metropolitan areas).

I've since learned that it's in my best interest to lie when asked about my religious beliefs.

[darkstar3]

127. Absolute bullshit.

"Speaking as an American, the vast majority of the country cares very little about religion."

I'm an American, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the country cares very much about religion.

When the question "where do you go to church" or "what denomination are you" features in the top 10 list of getting-to-know-you questions when meeting new people, religion is BFD.

When meetings of business professionals like the Chamber of Commerce or various businesspersons' associations open with a prayer every week, religion is a BFD.

When it causes a massive public outcry to remove a nativity scene from City Hall property due to First Amendment concerns, religion is a BFD.

When a horde of Christians to descend upon a city council meeting in a major metropolitan area to pray en masse as the meeting opens because the opening prayer was removed from the proceedings, religion is a BFD.

When you can find a group of at least 20 Christians protesting every day outside your local Planned Parenthood, religion is a BFD.

When it is nearly impossible to get an abortion in the majority of states in the union due religious outcry and policy-making, religion is a BFD.

When the majority of states not only have arcane laws on the books based on Christian teachings, but are currently working to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage due to religious fervor, religion is a BFD.

When taxpayer money goes to recognize God in various forms at the federal level, religion is a BFD.

When the President is critiqued by major news networks and newspapers because he doesn't attend Church quickly enough or often enough, religion is a BFD.

Am I getting through to you yet, because I have more.

As a member of the supermajority whose primary concern in this forum has often been whether your opinion is granted the "appropriate" level of respect, you have absolutely no perspective to tell me, an atheist, whether it is difficult to be me anywhere in the fuckin' world.

[kwassa]

138. Speaking as an American, the vast majority of the country cares very little about religion.

I don't think I am wrong. There is a vocal minority that does the things in your list in most places, a vocal majority in some places.

Frankly, I think most of the stuff you are complaining about in your long list is pretty trivial stuff. In my opinion, you are either highly and overly sensitive, or you are just looking for a fight.

Either way, I ain't wrong.

[darkstar3]

139. Pull the wool over your own eyes if you want, but don't bullshit the rest of us.

And don't sit there and tell me that religious encroachment onto the rights of women and minorities is "trivial". You and I both know it's not.

[kwassa]

149. They aren't enroaching on the rights. They can't.

The fundamentalist wave of the Bush years is dissipating quickly. They are disorganized, without leadership. They have been, and never will be, more than a vociferous minority themselves.

[laconicsax]

154. You know that isn't true.

Biblical literalists/creationists are the majority of Christians in the US. Polls consistently put them at around 52% of the Christian population.

Stop saying that 52% is a tiny minority. You know it isn't true.

[kwassa]

178. I don't believe that statistic for one second.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=5529

About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word, a new Gallup poll reveals. This percentage is only slightly lower than several decades ago.

Gallup reports that the majority of those "who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally." Finally, about one in five Americans believe the Bible is merely an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, Gallup explains, with such belief becoming much less prevalent as schooling continues.

Those who believe in the literal Bible amount to 31% of adult Americans. This is a decline of about 7% compared with Gallup polls taken in the 1970s and 1980s. It is strongest in the South.

Believe in the literal word of the Bible is strongest among those whose schooling stopped with high school and declines steadily with educational level, with only 20% of college graduates holding that view and 11% of those with an advanced degree.

I would also point out that Gallup is biased in favor of religion, not against it.

[laconicsax]

182. Even if that's the correct statistic, you're still wrong.

Half of the US Christian population is 37%. 31% of the US population would be 40% of the Christian population making it larger than any single denomination.

Do you want to explain how enough to be the single largest denomination is a tiny minority?

[kwassa]

193. 40% is a minority. I am not wrong.

[laconicsax]

203. Which brings me back to my original point.

Creationists consistently poll above 40% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx">see for yourself), meaning that they're a majority of Christians.

[darkstar3]

163. Abortion restrictions and marriage restrictions exist in the majority of the US.

You are demonstrably wrong. Again.

[laconicsax]

170. Oh, come on darkstar3, those don't affect straight men, so they don't *really* exist.

[kwassa]

179. 1) No, they don't. 2) What is the relevance to this topic?

[laconicsax]

184. That it's lost on you is sadly predictable. n/t

[kwassa]

196. That some can't substantiate their claims is also predictable.

[iris27]

201. YES, they do, and it's relevant because you have stated that religion is not encroaching on the

rights of women and minorities. These legal restrictions are in place as a direct result of religious lobbying, and they are absolutely infrigements on the human rights of women and gays.

Forty-eight states (or 96%) have at least one of several legal restrictions on abortion. The other 2 states (New Hampshire and Oklahoma) have both tried to pass one or more of these restrictions, but their state courts have stopped them and saw the laws violate the state constitution. These restrictions are:

- parental notice
- parental consent
- mandatory waiting periods
- mandatory "counseling"
- restrictions on state funding for abortions, for those with state-funded healthcare
- "informed consent", which means you have to listen to them recite a state-mandated spiel, some of which may not even be medically accurate. Here in Missouri, they were required to tell me that the fetus could feel pain...I was at 5 weeks so technically it wasn't even a fetus yet...I'll spare everyone the long-winded clinical explanation of just how WRONG the idea that a 5-week embryo can feel pain is...go look at BabyCenter.com if you're interested.

They even attempted SPOUSAL consent back in the 1990's, but the Supreme Court shot that down in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.


Marriage restrictions...41 states currently have outright prohibitions, either through law or through constitutional amendment, against gay marriage. Only five states currently allow marriage between two consenting adults without discrimination on the basis of gender. (The other 4 are in a murky middle of recognizing some gay marriages while not currently permitting any to be done in their own state.)

Oh, and before Loving v. Virginia in the 50's, there were marriage restrictions against interracial marriage too, which were ALSO heavily dependent on religious reasoning. The Virginia judge that initially ruled against the Lovings, which meant they had to bring their case to the Supremes, wrote the following in his ruling:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."




Stop minimizing the lived experiences of others who have encountered the world with less privilege than you possess. I do not expect to have seen as much racism out in the world as my friends of color have seen. Why do you insist that if you cannot see it, it is not there? Particularly for easily summoned facts like state-based abortion restrictions, and culturally *screamingly* obvious facts like the prevalence of gay marriage?

[laconicsax]

202. +1000

:applause:

[kwassa]

204. Do you know the difference between religion and culture?

You, like many, blame religion for cultural norms, when in fact culture creates interpretive norms of religious texts.

Many of the critiques of Christianity are completely unhistorical. Suppression of women and gays was not created by religion, such cultural norms, repulsive as they might be, were the norm in their eras and influenced the interpretation of religious texts. You claim it as the source when there is no proof that it is the source of oppression; it is merely cited selectively by oppressive people.

Sexism and homophobia are rife in cultures around the world, among believers in different religions, and have been for thousands of years. The liberation of both women and gays is a recent historical phenomenon. Gay marriage is a completely new idea.

Next weekend I am going to a celebration of a year and a half anniversary of a single-sex marriage. We went to the original wedding reception; the wedding itself was too far away to attend. One of the brides is the cousin to my wife.

I am a white heterosexual male, which you deem as a privileged position. My wife and daughter are African-American. I have a number of gay friends, most of whom are Episcopal clergy. The assistant rector of my church, a friend, was married in a same-sex marriage by the Bishop of Washington on the grounds of National Cathedral.

The restrictions on abortion and gay marriage are cultural, not religious, otherwise there would not be religious supporters of choice and same-sex marriage.

[laconicsax]

141. Yes, receiving death threats is "pretty trivial stuff."

Spare me your privileged condescension. First you claim that "invisible sky people" or "sky daddy" is the most derisive thing anyone can say about believers and now you say that the very real persecution atheists have suffered in this country is "pretty trivial stuff."

[kwassa]

150. I think most of what darkstar talked about was pretty trivial stuff.

you received death threats.

Where? From who? What precipitated it?

[laconicsax]

159. In the a blue state, from a stranger who engaged me in conversation.

He asked if I could recommend a church (he was new to the area). I said, "Sorry, I can't." He then asked what church I attended, and I said, "Oh, I'm not really religious."

This was apparently an invitation for him to Witness to me, and to the question, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" I said, "no" and he asked, "Are you Jewish?" I again replied "no," and he said, "well you believe in God, right?" I said, "I used to, but I don't anymore."

At this point his demeanor changed and asked me to repeat the last bit. I did, and he said, "you're lucky we're in public, cause if we weren't, I'd smash your skull in."

I took this as a good time to say, "it's been great talking to you, but I have to go." I offered a handshake, he took it, leaned in and said "you better watch out cause I'm gonna come after you." I started home, but after I noticed that he was following me, I took a detour to the police station downtown. I tried to report it, but since I didn't know his name and he looked very average, they apologized and sent me on my way.

So now are you going to tell me that these things happen, and nothing can change your perception from the warm, fuzzy fiction you prefer?

PS. The next time I was witnessed to, the PASTOR FROM A LOCAL CHURCH said that without God, he'd probably go around "bonking people on the head" and carried a gun in case he ever ran into "one of those godless atheists." He really spit those last two words and I hope you don't mind, but I lied to him about my beliefs. This was another uninvited conversation in a shopping mall in a blue state.

[kwassa]

177. Thank you for the details.

At least we have something to talk about.

I've lived in blue states, red states, east coast west coast and midwest.

I've never had anyone question my religion. I've never had anyone ask me if Jesus was my personal savior.

Both of these people sound like lunatics.

[laconicsax]

185. Feel free to ignore it if it's inconvenient to your fantasy. n/t

[iris27]

132. Have you lived, as an atheist, in these major metropolitan areas of which you speak?

I live in St. Louis, the nation's 15th largest city, the largest city in Missouri, and I have faced social pressure, ostracism, and more at the hands of teachers, coworkers, friends, family, and other assorted peers.

It is not illegal unless it involves a job or housing decision, and even then, how do you prove it? My husband was let go from a job when, out of seemingly nowhere, they had decided to “re-evaluate the position” and determined that they no longer needed it. Shortly before this shocker, he had gone to lunch with coworkers and his boss, and when their conversation turned to religion, he mentioned that he did not believe. They expressed their disapproval quickly and loudly. Do we KNOW this lunch was the reason for the sudden re-evaluation? No. But there were zero other signs that anything like this was coming down the pike.

I grew up a very devout believer, going to parochial school, often attending multiple Sunday services because I was part of the choir and handbell group, and yes, from that perspective, it seemed that Christians like me were a tiny minority. Because we were. The mushy middle, the true majority tends to turn on the game or hit the mall instead of going to Sunday services, only finding their way to the local church for Christmas and Easter. The members of the church I grew up in referred derisively to these folks as “C-and-E's”, and they were regarded as not caring very much about religion.

But these folks still firmly believe in a deity, and honestly, because they have probably thought about it less than someone more pious, tend to believe MORE of the doctrines of their particular flavor of religion, even the truly heinous ones. They also mistrust atheists more than they mistrust gays or Muslims. They just don't go to church much.

The view of this mushy middle looks very different from the other end of the spectrum. In the nine years that I have been a non-believer, I have seen these same people get immediately, defensively pious when they find out through casual chit-chat that I don't think people really have guardian angels, or that I don't think someone's up there answering prayers. Maybe it is residual guilt for not living up to their faith they way they feel they should. I don't know. All I know is that nothing has turned a person's reaction toward me from mostly pleasant to outright insulting faster than revealing my lack of belief.

But really, it wouldn't even matter if all of these people were as apathetic as you say. The weekly church-going devout MORE than make up for them. Of the numerous, semi-forced, multi-hour proselytizing sessions that I and my husband have endured, every one has been at the hands of a coworker, business contact, family member, or acquaintance who regularly went to church. Wait – another was a random street preacher – I admit, I don't know how often he attended services.

(Semi-forced, as in sprung upon us deliberately during an awkward time when leaving would cause a real scene, like during a family holiday, or on-site in the middle of a job with a business client.)

I have faced FAR more discrimination in my life due to my lack of belief than I have as a result of my bisexuality. Don't tell me that my life is "highly exaggerated".

[kwassa]

148. I've lived all over the country.

East coast, west coast, midwest. I've worked in for profit, non-profit, and corporate employers. I have NEVER been in a work environment where people even discussed religion, much less attempted to use their position to impose a religious viewpoint on other people.

Why are you and your husband getting proselytized? With family, you can tell them to stop. With a business client, you can not respond, go on to other things, divert the conversation, etc.

That is all within your power.

[darkstar3]

164. Sitting quietly in the back of the bus and not making a fuss was in the power of black people, too.

[kwassa]

183. what a non-sequitur.

[laconicsax]

186. Your deafness is really precious. n/t

[darkstar3]

187. Go back to eating billy goats.

[kwassa]

192. Do you have a response that involves actual content? Apparently not.

[darkstar3]

198. Non-content for non-content.

I respond to content. You want some from me, post some. The claim that my pointing to another example of classic prejudice that wasn't seen by the majority is a non-sequiter is nothing but poor hand-waving.

[LeftishBrit]

188. I realize now that I probably misunderstood your earlier post...

and that it was a sarcastic comment on religious messages on coins, rather than on the concept of privilege in general. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Nonetheless, I *do* think that discrimination is discrimination, whatever the basis of it.

I don't really mind what is put on a coin (if I *were* religious, I think the concept of mentioning God on a coin would bother me *more* - serving God and Mammon, and all that). FWIW, the religious message on British coins is nearly 500 years out of date; it describes the Monarch as 'Fid. Def', Defender of the Faith - which refers to Henry V111 being regarded by the Pope as the defender of the Catholic Church, until, oops, he wasn't. But I do mind any implication that believing in a particular religion is a key part of one's citizenship of a country, or that secularism is a threat to society.

[Leontius]

190. The Queen as the Head of the Church of England is still

"Defender of the Faith".

[LeftishBrit]

191. Yes- but the term is an anachronism because it was devised to refer to defending Catholicism, not

the Church of England (there was no such separate church at that time).

The title was bestowed by the Pope, and I doubt that the current Pope would regard the Queen as 'defender of the faith'.

Not that it really matters, given that Liz has no real political or religious power (it could matter that Catholics are excluded from the Monarchy, but that dates from the Act of Settlement, long after this particular term was bestowed). It's just a small historical irony.

[okasha]

63. Religious people of the right wing have no monopoly

on those objectionable economic viewpoints. Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is very much on the ascendant in the American right wing, with major players like Alan Greenspan and politicians like Rand Paul--actually named for her. As I'm sure you know, a major component of Rand's Objectivism is atheism. And no, I'm not saying that atheism is responsible for those viewpoints. What I am saying is that socially destructive greed is independent of theism or atheism.

It's not clear, in any case, why you're blaming religion for economic discrimination based on laissez-faire capitalism or racism. Some of the most cogent and effective protest against such things has been based in religion.

[LeftishBrit]

64. II wasn't; I was drawing parallels between a variety of situations where a powerful majority act as

though they are being 'oppressed' by a powerless minority. Not saying that they're the same, let alone all caused by religion..

I brought up the economic example because the person whom I replied to spoke sarcastically on the lines of 'I suppose I'll have to burn my money'.

[darkstar3]

61. What? Oh, I see, you think I meant those words in regard to the money.

Wrong. Read it again, and if you have trouble understanding what I was saying, put the emphasis on the word "that's".

[LeftishBrit]

54. See my first paragraph, as to possible reasons why some atheists deride believers

As I say (from a different country and therefore perhaps different perspective):

I do not deride believers.

I do deride, or rather protest against, anti-secularists.

I protest against those who consider atheists to be less suitable than believers for political office, or even as automatically banned from office.

I protest against those who consider atheists as less than full citizens of their country, or as responsible for their country's social and political problems.

I protest against those who consider that it's OK for believers to proselytize but wrong for atheists to do so. (Some British people are against both, and consider that talking about religion at all is bad manners. Fine - as long as one is consistent.)

I protest against those who consider that religious moral rules should be incorporated into national law. I ESPECIALLY protest against those who consider that religious believers are 'persecuted' if they are prevented from incorporating religious moral rules into national law, or that this constitutes 'secular tyranny' or the 'dictatorship or moral relativism'.

I protest against those who campaign, with vicious smears, to defeat politicians who are secular or seen as too socially liberal (yes, that's happened pretty much on my doorstep, even in England).

I protest against those who consider that if you're an atheist you 'don't count' (yes, that was even said, in so many words, on DU).

I do NOT have such problems with believers - including the Archbishop of Canterbury and many clergy in England - who do not do the things I have mentioned above.

I DO have a problem those who smear and attack such clergy for not being right-wing and intolerant enough.

[cleanhippie]

19. Again, color me not surprised.

:eyes:

[Deep13]

59. No. It's the beliefs I criticize and sometimes deride.

I tend to be critical of people for their actions.

[sudopod]

8. " subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society "

[laconicsax]

11. At the point of a spear, no less. n/t

[sudopod]

13. At least the vikings were honest when they killed you and took your stuff.

None of this "We're on a mission from God to save your souls" stuff.

[laconicsax]

9. "bringing liberation from fatalism, conferring great dignity on human beings," LOL WUT?

:rofl:

[onager]

16. IOW, the usual revisionism and propaganda

Here's something else you "need to know:"

The last recorded Greek astronomical observations were by Proclus in 475 CE.

The next recorded astronomical observations were by Copernicus in 1453.

Now what could have possibly restrained scientific inquiry for a thousand years?

One of the many interesting things I learned from Charles Freeman's book, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason.

Lib'rul Xians, Faitheists and accomodationists can read Freeman with confidence. In his next book, A.D. 381, he used the Foreword to launch a cranky and bitter attack on Richard Dawkins. Apparently Freeman "enjoys discussing religion" and believes Dawkins is somehow trying to take that away from him. Despite the fact that Dawkins is a pretty good religious discussionist himself. Especially in his discussions with people like Ted Haggard.

[struggle4progress]

42. ... This particular astrolabe, dated 1326, resembles the instrument described in Geoffrey Chaucer's

Treatise on the Astrolabe. The treatise is addressed to 'his little son, Lewis' and uses the year 1391 for its calculations. Like the astronomical and astrological references in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, it demonstrates his unusually well-informed interest in contemporary science ...
http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/astrolabe.html

... why should the leprous abbot of England's premier monastery spend his declining years designing an elaborately accurate clock? ... Richard of Wallingford owed much to the Benedictine Abbey of St Alban ... The Prior supported him and eventually sent him to Oxford, where he gained his BA after six years of study at the age of twenty-three in 1314 ... The Abbey Chronicles tell us that Richard himself felt that he had neglected theology at Oxford, preferring to concentrate on mathematics and astronomy ... North has fully described the clock's workings; Lehr gives excellent diagrams of the gears and the clock face ...
The wheel with 120 teeth ... rotates once in 24 hours, and drives everything else.
The wheel with 115 teeth rotates once in 23h 56m 4.12s, only 0.03s longer than the sidereal day, so within one part in 3 million of the correct value, turning the star plate ...
The wheel with 331 teeth is not circular, but shaped in such a way as to drive an image of the sun with the sun's true equatorial velocity ... compensating for the equation of time ...
The moon is represented by a sphere which rotates to show the lunar phases, and whose mean motion is within 1.8 parts per million of the true value ...
http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/row.htm

... The first significant astronomy at Oxford achieved international renown before the Reformation ... John Ashindon or Ashinden, also called Eastwood (in one reference of 1338) was according to Anthony Wood the greatest mathematician and astronomer ever produced by Merton College. He inspired a succession of students applying themselves to mathematics and astronomy over the next 150 years. Most of their work was removed from the college library in a cart during a Visitation in the reign of Edward VI, when such books and manuscripts relating to natural science were regarded as profane or worse, and were burned or sold as scrap paper ... At that time the best astronomical tables predicting the positions of the Sun, Moon and planets for astrologers and navigators, were the Alphonsine Tables produced at Toledo in 1272. Ashindon and Rede are believed to have used astrolabes to make observations from the south part of the city wall that is also the boundary of Merton College garden. They made improved calculations including the mean longitude of each planet for every 20 years, and published tables adapted for the latitude of Oxford that were a distinct improvement on the Spanish tables ...
http://www.freewebs.com/sochistastro/oxfordshire.htm

[onager]

43. OK, you win - only ALMOST a thousand years...

Now you can go have a spirited debate with Charles Freeman. I'll make the popcorn.

[struggle4progress]

44. We've established that you make careless statements, indifferent to the actual history

The medieval Christian world was not indifferent to new and useful ideas

... Biscop brought relics, paintings, and books back to his monasteries. He created a large library at Jarrow which made it one of the cultural centers of Northumbria. Bede had access to important ancient works ... The skill Bede displayed as a chronologist and his scrupulous attention to sources in this work are the basis for the innovations of the Ecclesiastical History. The History provides one of the few sources of information on early English history. It also established the use of the modern system of chronology, the annus domini. Prior to the Ecclesiastical History, there were several different systems of calculating dates, such as the four year Olympiad, the fifteen year Indiction, and the annus mundi, which all related to the Paschal cycle of 532 years. The correct reckoning of time was important for the Church, not only for determining when to recite the Divine Office each day, but for calculating the proper observance of the major festivals. The liturgical year centered around Easter, which was a "movable" festival. Unlike the Nativity, which was tied to the winter solstice, Easter had originated out of the Passover and was calculated according to the lunar year. The Julian calendar was based on the solar year; hence, the celebration of Easter fell on different days from year to year. Difficulties in calculating the correct dates for Easter had created conflicts between the Celtic and Roman churches in England. Bede was a strong advocate of Roman orthodoxy, and paid particular attention to this problem in his History. These difficulties with uniform calculations of time prompted Bede to use the annus domini as a method for relating simultaneous event, and events which occurred in different parts of the world. This was a monumental task, since "he had to take account in his various chronological calculations of several different eras of the world with different starting points, of Imperial regnal years from both the eastern and the western empire, of consular years, of Indictions which might begin variously on 1 September, 25 September, or 25 January ... and also of the regnal years of half a dozen Anglo-Saxon kings reigning contemporaneously but succeeding to their several kingdoms at different dates in a year which had no uniform beginning even within England itself." By recalculating all these various time tables and placing events within a single framework, Bede established modern chronology ... http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/bede1.htm

... In the year 725 Bede (Latin name Beda Venerabilis) published a new extension of Dionysius’ Easter table to a great Easter cycle, which is periodic in its entirety and in which consequently not only the sequence of (Julian calendar) dates of Alexandrian paschal full moon but also the sequence of (Julian calendar) dates of Alexandrian Easter Sunday is periodic. Bede’s Easter cycle contains lunar cycles (of 19 years) as well as solar cycles (of 28 years), and therefore it has a period of 532 years ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beda_Venerabilis%27_Easter_cycle

... Soap came into widespread use in Europe during the ninth century. Techniques for producing it improved during the next two centuries, but the product remained soft, more like today's liquid soaps. By the 12th century hard soap came into use ... http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/soap.html

... The other kind of windmill is the vertical or post mill ... Here the sails are vertical, revolving around a horizontal axle. The other end of this axle is attached to a wooden gear which in turn is attached to gear on a separate vertical axle to which the millstone is attached. The gear ratio is set to provide a reasonable grinding speed in a typical wind .... the first surviving mention of one comes from Yorkshire in England in 1185 ... http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/windmills.html

... Magnetized needles used as direction pointers are attested to in the 8th century AD in China, and between 850 and 1050 they seem to have become common as navigational devices on ships ... Knowledge of the compass as a directional device came to Western Europe probably sometime in the 12th century ... The assumed path is by the overland Silk Road and not by sea on the "standard" trading route from China to India to Arab and Egyptian ports. This assumption is made because the Arabs seem to have learned of the compass from the Europeans. The first mention of the directional compass .. occurs in Alexander Neckam's De naturis rerum, probably written in Paris in 1190 ... http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/compass.html

[onager]

113. Is that a royal "we," Your Google Majesty?

:rofl:

No, of course not. As you and the rest of the courtiers in here certainly know, only the Emperor rates the royal "we."

I eagerly await your scholarship on the sequins adorning his royal codpiece.

[laconicsax]

122. Heretic! The Emperor's codpiece is adorned with delicate gold leaves. n/t

[Deep13]

69. I would not claim that religious people, even ecclesiastical people...

...cannot do science. I do claim that serious scientific inquiry during the Christian age before the Enlightenment was the exception rather than the rule.

[struggle4progress]

73. "Serious scientific inquiry" has always been "the exception rather than the rule"

You should consider, for example, the rate of progress in ancient Egypt or in China, where impressive accomplishments accumulated, but only very slowly and only over a long period of time

The Greek invention of rationality led to a sort of intellectual golden age, involving only part of the upper class in a slave society, but that golden age largely ended with the Roman invasion. The Library of Alexandria was perhaps first burnt accidentally by Julius Caesar as he tried to capture Pompey

Moreover, you'll have to look long and hard to find much Greek experimental work: most Greek reasoning was simply abstract and ideological, without experimental check. It was often impressive, but the emphasis on abstract and ideological work is precisely what we today dislike about medieval scholasticism -- which inherited its abstract and ideological bent from the Greek authors the scholastics so admired

Roman culture was scarcely interested in abstract thinking: it focused on pragmatic issues and barely had a useful notation for a few fractions (the uncia)

The Greek treasures passed to the Eastern Empire when Rome finally collapsed, and thus eventually they became an Islamic treasure, as Islam overtook the Eastern Empire. Islam also soon had the advantage of the Indic numerals, which Fibonacci began to advocate in Europe in the thirteen century. An Islamic golden age resulted and ideas percolated into Europe, probably from Spain

Perhaps the first clear indications of modern experimental philosophy come from the monk, Roger Bacon

It's impossible to imagine modern science without Greek rationality. But it's also impossible to imagine it without something like the Indo-Arabic numerals and algorithms. Subjecting reason to experimental tests is an idea that developed with late medieval disputes about Aristotelian texts. And of course the modern notion of a reproducible experiment leans very heavily on standardized mass production, which is a product of the industrial revolution.


... The works of Aristotle were made available in the Latin West in three clearly distinguishable stages. The first stage opened in the sixth century with Boethius's (c. 480–c. 524) translations of Aristotle's treatises on logic, along with some notions transmitted by Cicero (106–43 B.C.E.). Such works had but little effect upon the monastic life of the early Middle Ages. The second stage began in the twelfth century with the gradual translation of the entire corpus of Aristotle's works ... The condemnation in 1210 and 1215 of Aristotle's libri naturales (books of natural philosophy) at Paris was followed by an intense effort to axiomatize the quadrivial sciences ...
http://science.jrank.org/pages/8365/Aristotelianism-Medieval-Latin-Aristotelianism.html

Roger Bacon (1214/1220–1292), Master of Arts, University of Paris, later Franciscan Friar was one of the earliest witnesses to the reception of Aristotle at Paris soon after the lifting of the Condemnations of 1210, 1215, 1231 ... Bacon in De scientia experimentali and in related works ... argues that logical argument alone, even when it originates from experience, is not sufficient for the ‘verification of things’ ... His aim is to provide a method for science, one that is analogous to the use of Logic to test validity in arguments. This new practical method consists of a combination of mathematics and detailed experiential descriptions of discrete phenomena in nature. It would be distinguished from the conjurations of Magic and from Moral and Religious Belief. It would also be different from Philosophy of Nature and from broad Optical Knowledge ... Bacon depends on the accounts handed on by Aristotle, Seneca and Avicenna. He is not uncritical of these accounts. His own important contribution is to be found in his calculation of the measured value of 42 degrees for the maximum elevation of the rainbow. This was probably done with an astrolabe, and in this, Bacon advocates the skillful mathematical use of instruments for an experimental science ... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/#OpuMaiFouFivSixMatNatDeMulSpePerSciExp

[Deep13]

79. I actually had Bacon in mind.

Yes, progress has always been very slow. Also, societies have always been very religious. As discovery began to pick up, it was the churches that stood in its way through censorship, propaganda and unspeakable savagery. The same was true with social and political reform. And it remains true today.

[struggle4progress]

86. You can ask youself what the Romans left to Europe: they had some engineering savvy

and so left roads and aqueducts, for example -- but the history of Rome rampant is not a great history of scientific progress; you can probably reckon on the fingers of one hand the important Roman scientists -- a rather different story than the story of the golden age of Greece or the golden age of Islam. The Romans were largely interested in extracting tribute from the empire to feed Rome itself

The collapse of the Roman empire represents an organizational collapse and the end of the Pax Romana -- but that is not a scientific tragedy. Perhaps the fall of Rome did mean that more European resources had to be devoted to European wars, but tribute was no longer paid to Rome

Wars, of course, are expensive. It is difficult to sum what Europe lost between 1914 and 1945, for example: a whole generation of French men, including many good scientists, vanished into the fog of the Great War; Germany, perhaps the leading scientific nation in 1900, lay in smouldering ruins at the end of WWII. The fall of Rome did not bring peace to Europe, and there were considerable social costs associated with that

But if war is expensive, so is the imperial abstraction of resources. Africa today has not recovered from the European predations a century or more ago. Rome was not known for its kindness towards those it conquered, and there were considerable social costs associated with that, too

The situation in Europe, following the fall of the Roman empire, was not that of a scientifically advanced continent suddenly plunged into darkness by the advent of Christendom: the region consisted of former Roman colonial territories, now wracked by military power struggles

It does not seem to me that one can uniformly blame the Catholic church for the "unspeakable savagery" of the pre-modern world. The Roman model was sometimes brutal in the extreme, including all manner of murders for mere entertainment. In this context of Roman extraction from the poor, and Roman cruelty to reinforce the claims of the Roman state, you can ask yourself (independent of any views you have regarding the historical authenticity of the old Christian stories): Exactly why would any of the Roman world subscribe to this strange tale, in which the Savior of the World appears as a homeless peasant in a backwater colony and is unpleasantly put to death by the authorities? What meaning could be found in that story, that anyone would tell and re-tell it?



... So in acts of violence, where there is a wish to hurt, whether by reproach or injury; and these either for revenge, as one enemy against another; or for some profit belonging to another, as the robber to the traveller; or to avoid some evil, as towards one who is feared; or through envy, as one less fortunate to one more so, or one well thriven in any thing, to him whose being on a par with himself he fears, or grieves at, or for the mere pleasure at another`s pain, as spectators of gladiators, or deriders and mockers of others. These be the heads of iniquity ...
Confessions Of St. Augustine
Book VI

[okasha]

155. Perhaps you can explain why no such setbacks

to knowlege occurred in the Eastern Roman empire.

[Leontius]

160. Actually they did but to a lesser extent ,scientific inquiry was not

a priority in the Late Roman Empire, East or West. Although the East was more stable the pressure of a declining population and economic stress did have its effect on life in the Eastern empire.As the population of many towns shrunk and trade decreased the schools in many disappeared.

[okasha]

161. Yet the East managed to preserve

the classical knowledge that the Arabs would later reintroduce to the west; mathematics went forward; so did engineering/mechanics--some of it large scale (Hagia Sophia) some of it small and rather spectacular, like the mechanical birds--and medicine. Then there was Greek fire, which represented the application of both chemistry and physics to warfare. Most of this occurred later than the period you mention, and none of it was squelched by the church.

The difference, of course, is that the East managed to fend off the invading tribes of the Migration Era, whereas the west was overrun. Invasions of western Europe persisted over six or seven centuries and pretty much disrupted what the region could string together of civilization. There were actually only two or three centuries between the last of the Viking raids and the first stirrings of the renaissance. Once the raids stopped, Western Europe got itself back together fairly rapidly.

[rug]

50. "Now what could have possibly restrained scientific inquiry for a thousand years? "

Let me see, the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, the little ice age, not to mention various invasions and migrations into the former Roman Empire. All of which was religiously motivated I'm sure.

So I guess your statement about the suppression of science is true. Unless you look outside Europe. I surmise there were quite a few advances in the Arab caliphates, China, Central and South America.

Maybe there's more you need to know.

[Deep13]

70. "Unless you look outside Europe."

If only we had some way of knowing what religion Medieval Europeans practiced. Damned frustrating! Doesn't it seem a bit coincidental that Rome pretty much fell apart as soon as they changed religion? Not that it was a huge catastrophe or anything. The Romans could be real bastards, after all.

The Arab scientific enlightenment sure didn't last long. Central and South America might not be your best examples. A lot of those folks, especially in Mexico and Central America, ate each other because of religious dogma.

[rug]

80. Well, that convinced me.

religion has destroyed all that civilization has to offer.

[cleanhippie]

91. Well, thats certainly one way to say it.

A bit bombastic for me, but the point is made. Glad we agree.

[okasha]

156. Please cite your sources for cannibalism by Native Americans

in Central and South America.

[Odin2005]

168. The fall of Rome had nothing to do with Christianity, Edward Gibbons was an idiot for thinking so.

Rome collapsed because the population dropped because of disease and economic problems and because of that the Roman state could no longer prevent the overpopulated Germans being additionally pushed by the Huns from forcing their way in and settling.

[laconicsax]

71. The little ice age?

You can't seriously be asserting that a cold period from the 16th to 19th centuries inhibited scientific inquiry between the 5th to 16th centuries.

By the way, the civilizations of Central and South America, for all their cultural achievements, were stuck in the stone age.

[rug]

82. Oh it must have been the rosaries.

Too bad the Aztecs didn't have them before Columbus. They may not have stayed stuck in the Stone Age.

[Odin2005]

167. I'm an Atheist. but I'm sick of these stereptypes about the Middle Ages.

The notions that 1. The Middle Ages were a time of backwardness and no scientific advancement and 2. that the church was constantly suppressing knowledge are utter bunk.

Modern science actually owes nothing to the Ancient Greeks, who were actually very experiment-phobic and preferred metaphysical navel-gazing over empirical evidence, and when observations contradicted their metaphysical theories they dismissed the observations as part of the inherent imperfections of percieved reality compared to the perfection of the metaphysical universe of unchanging Forms. It is THIS Greek anti-empiricism that got in the way of scientific advancement, NOT Christianity. it is not until Rene Descartes that the Greek BS was shit-canned to the dustbin of history.

[struggle4progress]

18. Here's a series of lectures by David Bentley Hart

Maybe 25 minutes total

The violence of Christian history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meA3FPZZfpg

The new atheists and an ugly God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYXohl0szo

Ethics and the good life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC2SpvYboC4

Nostalgia for a pagan past
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66CAr1ng8sQ

Gnosticism and alternative gospels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTSMAXqVX8A

Suffering and the problem of evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTuhme8mwk

[rug]

27. Thanks for the links.

[Leontius]

21. Pavlov's dog, same gang, same bell.

Might give the book a read, thanks for bringing it up.

[dimbear]

28. Out here in the boonies, that free chapter looked good.

Amazon hates my version of Kindle. No problem: free update. Download time: (I swear to you ) 4 hours.

It's so hard to learn these divine truths.

[Deep13]

58. While he was busy taking no prisoners, ...

did Williams offer any evidence to support the factual claims of Christianity?

If not, all this remains an academic point except for historians interested in the causes, effects and history of religion.

[rug]

81. You could ask him.

[struggle4progress]

90. I think you can probably gather his view from the videos I posted in #18

[Deep13]

67. Book critiquing coffee wins tea grower's prize. nt

[rug]

83. Book critiquing religion posted eight times in R/T.

Twelve times in A/A, with cartoons.

[cleanhippie]

92. Link?

I like good cartoons.

[Deep13]

99. And? nt

[Leontius]

85. The sad thing is ignorance of history or at best a cartoon

version of history is often used by people to reinforce their worldview. In watching one of the interview segments on youtube he makes this point. I see it here quite often and given how 'enlightened' everyone here, is or claims to be, it is quite sad.

[iris27]

106. And Bill Maher won the AAI's "Richard Dawkins Award". So?

It's all just people who share the same opinions about religion patting one another on the back.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dimbear]

114. You can get a taste of the argument from the bit about the Library of Alexandria.

Some rash and overenthusiastic atheist accused Christians of destroying it.

Shame.

The Christians only burned its contents. Nothing like destroying it.

The actual complete destruction had to wait for the Moslems, centuries later.

Fie on those exaggerating atheists. For shame.

[rug]

121. That was a neat trick in 48 BC.

"The ancient accounts by Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Orosius agree that Caesar accidentally burned the library down during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC."

---

"The library seems to have been maintained and continued in existence until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (ruled Egypt AD 269–274)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction

Perhaps you're confusing it with the destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum.

[dimbear]

126. The library was partially destroyed several times. I refer to the

episode under Theophilus after the decree of 391.







edit: get date right

[struggle4progress]

134. The Mysterious Fate of the Great Library of Alexandria

http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

The discussion of the library is worth reading; I cannot claim that it is authoritative.

[dimbear]

135. The reign of Theodosius should be of critical interest to any believer.

He is IMHO the second most important Christian Emperor, second only to Constantine, because he was the first to violently force Christianity on his subjects. It is certainly not at all surprising that the Church keeps very quiet about his many misdeeds.

It is due to him and his bonfires that so many key documents have been forever lost, for the most part, although the indifference of the Apostolic Fathers to what documents there were is sadly telling. (Their appetite for history as it really happened was more or less nil.)

All caring believers should ask themselves why this part of history is suppressed, discarded, forgotten, hidden, and treated with indifference. Also why this part of history is so greatly...just missing. Look at most any history of the church to see this era soft pedalled, airbrushed, fluffed up or ignored. Even in the latest books by the likes of Elaine Pagels et al. it's just not of interest. Or would that be.....forbidden?

Always there recurs the comparison of our law courts. Once one side has admitted that it burned the evidence, the judgment goes to the other.

[Nihil]

137. Interestingly enough, both points have the same (apparent) exception ...

> Always there recurs the comparison of our law courts.
> Once one side has admitted that it burned the evidence,
> the judgment goes to the other.

The exception is when it is "The State" that has done the
burning (or shredding or assassinating or threatening or
other form of "evidence removal") ...

:shrug:

("The State" = "Powers That Be" or other name for the
actual authority regardless of how such people appear
in public.)

[struggle4progress]

142. Of course, whenever religions become associated with state authority, political issues

will be modeled as religious disputes

It's not a uniquely Roman phenomenon, but the state itself had a religious aspect in the time of the Empire, and Caesar Augustus literally Son of God, Savior of the World, just as Hirohito was divine two millennia later. The pre-Christian Roman state enforced its religious status, in various ways, with varying enthusiasm according to varying circumstances -- more stringently in time of crisis. As the empire began to collapse, the Roman state really demanded religious tokens of loyalty, rather resembling the demands for religious orthodoxy that accompanied the political upheavals in the Reformation era. When later Roman emperors called themselves Christian, they nevertheless operated within the same cultural context, with similar understanding of the relation between statecraft and religion. At the time of Theodosius, the Empire has been in crisis for decades, and it is about to irrevocably split: it is not a sudden innovation of Theodosius, to regard religion as a face of politics, since everyone then regarded it as "common sense" that the state had a religious status


... suddenly in the middle of the 3rd century, the year 250, the Emperor Decius decides that Christians are a real enemy of the Roman order, that they must be dealt with empire-wide, with all the police power that the emperor can bring to bear upon them. And he issues a decree that everyone has to sacrifice to the Roman gods ... It's not a criminal offense to be a Christian. What you have to do is get a ticket, a lebevos, a chit saying that you have sacrificed for the well-being of the empire ... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html#perpetua#ixzz1O8sajpz7

... Then they came to me, and my father immediately appeared with my boy, and withdrew me from the step, and said in a supplicating tone, 'Have pity on your babe.' And Hilarianus the procurator, who had just received the power of life and death in the place of the proconsul Minucius Timinianus, who was deceased, said, 'Spare the grey hairs of your father, spare the infancy of your boy, offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperors.' And I replied, 'I will not do so.' Hilarianus said, 'Are you a Christian?' And I replied, 'I am a Christian.' And as my father stood there to cast me down from the faith, he was ordered by Hilarianus to be thrown down, and was beaten with rods. And my father's misfortune grieved me as if I myself had been beaten, I so grieved for his wretched old age. The procurator then delivers judgment on all of us, and condemns us to the wild beasts ... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian24.html

[dimbear]

144. That bit about the pretense of tithing to the old gods is a key.

All the Christians had to do was toss in a pittance to the old gods and they were good to go. Only problem? Wouldn't do it. Prohibited, of course.

One of the big selling points in those early days was the Christians' willingness to be martyred. In some case eagerness to be martyred, tho those would probably be pathological cases.

But.....if some were willing to die for Pepsi, others must have been willing to die for Coca-Cola, so to my mind the idea that there could ever be a peaceful transition from toleration before Constantine to prohibition under/after Theodosius is dead on arrival. (The story of the reconquista in Spain and Portugal suggests how right I am.)

The whole century is like a detective story without enough clues. All we really have is a few archaeological discoveries (which belong spang in a detective story, a murder detective story) and our little grey cells. A few fragmentary documents which have been in the hands of the church. I would certainly welcome anyone with any more authoritative info to step forward. Any takers in the basement of the Vatican library?

Struggle is spot on saying that business probably continued as usual in the Empire.

Fascinating area.

And BTW, struggle, thanks for all the soldiering you do to make this forum work. You're one of the good ones. :)

[Odin2005]

171. The library was actually burned 4 times over 700 years.

First by Julius Caesar, 2nd by a 3rd Century Emperor, 3rd by a Christian mob in the 400s, and finally by the invading Muslim Arabs.

[dimbear]

172. The point is that you're only probably right. But you're probably right.

That's the consensus opinion. There are loud dissenters, mostly of the self-interested variety. And of course my opinion is self-interested too.

BTW, got a laugh over at Amazon reading the reviews. Someone was claiming that a certain writer named Gibbons was notoriously biased. Leeza, probably.

[LeftishBrit]

143. Well, it sounds like a book that an Archbishop would like...

Actually, I have few direct problems with the Archbishop or a number of other bishops, though I don't agree with their theology, and don't think that they should be sitting in the legislature. Nor am I worried about a theological book that criticizes atheist *ideas*, any more than one that criticizes religious ideas. Though I haven't read the book, and am not sure that I will.

It is those who use religion (or other ideology) to campaign for right-wing policies; the people who call secularism immoral or responsible for current social evils; those who cry 'persecution' if they cannot ban homosexuality and abortion; those who speak of 'dictatorship of moral relativism' and the like; those who think that atheists are unworthy individuals - it is all these to whom I object. The people who worry me are right-wing religious leaders and campaigners like Michael Nazir Ali and Andrea Minichiello Williams (leaders of Christian Concern for Our Nation); anti-secularist journalists like Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens and Cristina Odone; and Christian Right politicians like Nadine Dorries and David Burrowes and Ian Duncan Smith (and Tony Blair!), and their mostly still worse American counterparts from Palin and Santorum onwards.