|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 21, 2008 9:11:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Dec 21, 2008 16:59:11 GMT
The article and the comments are sure bound to mitigate my deep and utter intellectual contempt for New Atheism. Tssssk.
Am I being mean here? I would think not but maybe I go over the top. Tell me if I do. Anyway, there is a difference between contempt for a person's views and contempt of the person him/herself. How can you despise a child of God?
Al
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 22, 2008 13:05:54 GMT
I think A.C realised that:
a) No-one read his series on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
b) Those that did and commented were more interested in saying the whole concept of human rights is bogus rather than following him in praising it.
c) Anti-clericism is a sure fire way to get hits and comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 23, 2008 9:59:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 23, 2008 13:19:08 GMT
Hmmm, Polly says that:
'I could say we are mortally offended and demand protection from such insult. But it is the prerogative of religions to be protected from feeling offended. Priests, imams and rabbis reserve for their beliefs a special respect, ringfenced from normal public argument. It is abusive and insulting to suggest that belief in gods and miracles is delusional, or that religions are inherently anti-women'
Anti-women?, someone should have told Mar Wollstonecraft and Harriet Taylor Mill
|
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 24, 2008 4:56:34 GMT
I consider myself to be an agnostic and rather comfortable one at that. I left fundamentalist Christianity years ago and for awhile I was a militant atheist but in time it was something I outgrew. I think of the reasons for my outgrowing of this was that I was a history major and doing that kind of degree required me to explore history in much much more depth then the typical militant atheist.
Religion has certainly committed it's share of crimes but not all crimes can be traced to a religious origin. I cannot think of any religious causes for either World Wars or many, many others. I think many militant atheist make the mistake of seeing things in terms of either devoutly religious, or devoutly skeptical, they cannot see grey. Therefore someone like Columbus becomes in their eyes a devout Catholic. They simply cannot comprehend the fact that the vast majority of people believe in some kind of Deism, with a sprinkle of the religion they were born into philosophy. Some of their beliefs which they add onto it come from culture, not the religion itself. They cannot understand that humanity itself has made our history what it is, not that humanity guided by religion made our history what it is. Certainly if religion corrupted man always for the worst nations such as the USSR would be moral paragons.
I just wonder now days why so many Atheist, like Grayling must see all religious people as their enemy? Are they so blind to the fact the vast vast majority are not? Why provoke a fight with people who do not want to fight you?
|
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Dec 25, 2008 11:45:47 GMT
Dear krkey1,
I can only speak for one atheist,but I most certainly do not see most religious people as the 'enemy'.I also suspect neither do the vast majority of disbelievers.Rather I am interested to understand what leads believers to their conclusions as I find it all extremely puzzling.Please don't make the mistake of over-generalising about such a diverse group.
Best wishes,Peter.
|
|
