tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post4116144960456276389..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: How to Make a Militant AtheistDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-16321635284600927692016-01-17T15:29:15.838-05:002016-01-17T15:29:15.838-05:00What a dumb comment if there is no God then quit w...What a dumb comment if there is no God then quit wasting your time on here....talk about cars, boats, guns, but no you spend your time talking about God and defending mass murdering schizophrenic lunatic maniacs who have committed largest acts of genocide in the history of humanity.....God's judgement will b swift.....<br /><br />You want proof for God? <br /><br />Atheism sought to wipe out Christianity in Russia, Romania, China, France, German Reich's, Cambodia....yet all failed, were wiped off the face of this Earth....<br /><br />When you are cold, wet, hungry and tired and your children are suffering raise your hands to the sky and praise God for His justice :)<br /><br />LaterAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535913757866040529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-15587149556908718772010-03-05T14:10:59.300-05:002010-03-05T14:10:59.300-05:00The Barefoot Bum,
Thanks for the article, I have ...The Barefoot Bum,<br /><br />Thanks for the article, I have printed it and plan to read it this weekend.<br /><br />Re: western vs. eastern communism. That's an interesting point and distinction. Before I deconverted, I wrote to many people looking for input. I wrote several theologians with reputations looking for answers. Not one ever answered any of my letters (so much for the "one lost sheep") <br /><br />I also wrote a few atheists of repute. Each responded. In particular, I wrote to Noam Chomsky over a period of a few months. He responded each and every time. I was both floored and touched by his warmth, humility and humanity. <br /><br />Another, who has become one of my best friends, is also a feminist communist who started an intentional commune for several years, is one of the warmest, kindest people I know. <br /><br />Both are a far cry from being "caricatures of "totalitarian atheists."paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-33746576270287621452010-03-04T05:10:40.515-05:002010-03-04T05:10:40.515-05:00It's also important to note that Western athei...It's also important to note that Western atheists typically do not consider 20th century Asian, Russian and Eastern European communists to be part of their community. Atheism is at best a small commonality swimming in a sea of enormous cultural, political and economic differences between East and West.<br /><br />Regardless of the specific character of the evils of the East, the atheist community in the West is not in the least bit eliminationist; our "hostility" to religion is firmly nonviolent at every identifiable institutional and cultural level i.e. barring the odd nutjob who is decisively repudiated by the community.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-36555492014874295912010-03-04T04:52:19.134-05:002010-03-04T04:52:19.134-05:00Given their history of imprisoning, torturing and ...<i>Given their history of imprisoning, torturing and killing theists, why don't you think they would qualify as examples of militant atheists?</i><br /><br />I refer you to this essay: <a href="http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=36" rel="nofollow">Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities?</a><br /><br />We have to distinguish between people who happen to be atheists who kill a lot of people for various reasons, and atheists who have the intent of killing religious people specifically because they are religious.<br /><br />Pretty much any time you're talking about <i>communists</i>, you're talking about people who have a deep and profound hostility to the property-owning feudal (19th century) and capitalist (19th & 20th century) ruling classes and the institutions that support these classes. Communists are hostile to religion to the extent that religious institutions <i>serve</i> the ruling classes... and they very often do.<br /><br />(Note that hostility, a precondition to eliminationism, is not itself eliminationist. As a communist, I myself am definitely hostile to the capitalist ruling class, but I do not want to actually eliminate them. They are not bad people; they are ordinary who have bad ideas. I am hostile to the capitalist ruling class only to the extent that I expect to have to defend myself against them when and if the people decide to take the power they deserve over their own political and economic lives.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-71100929804308036072010-03-03T23:05:13.342-05:002010-03-03T23:05:13.342-05:00The Barefoot Bum,
Thanks for taking the time to e...The Barefoot Bum,<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to explain your use of the term "bullshitting," I appreciate the comments of both Feynmen and Orwell that you quote, and your own take on bs as well. And with your explanation I can see why you called me out on this. I am clearly not informed enough to be making the comments I did regarding Baggini, they were speculative at best.<br /><br />Further, I understand and agree that when someone sets there self up as an authority ("professional philosopher") that they are fair game for criticism, and should be. Criticism is an important component of discovery, or at least of removing the BS and should be embraced as part of the process of 'seeing.'<br /><br />I do have a question. You stated early on that "not even caricatures of "totalitarian" atheists (e.g. Stalin) were eliminationist towards the religious." And I mentioned Ceausescu. Given their history of imprisoning, torturing and killing theists, why don't you think they would qualify as examples of militant atheists? Is it because they would be more accurately described as militant communist? Or why? I am more familiar with Ceausescu than Stalin. Particularly Richard Wurmbrand's testimony before the U.S. Senate in the late 60's regarding religious persecution under his regime. <br /><br />What I have read of Wurmbrand and others experience under these regimes seems like a concerted effort to wipe out theism. They did kill religious people and try to threaten them into submission.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-87737070146319700152010-03-03T17:50:18.279-05:002010-03-03T17:50:18.279-05:00er... As far as I'm concerned, the beliefs Bag...er... As far as I'm concerned, the beliefs Baggini <b>condemns as false</b> are not just true...Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-5850246220319475502010-03-03T16:00:45.439-05:002010-03-03T16:00:45.439-05:00I am non-theist, a deconvert. But I have a former ...<i>I am non-theist, a deconvert. But I have a former wife and two sons who are still fundamentalist Christian. I still care about these people very deeply and find myself looking for ways to connect.</i><br /><br />I have no idea what that's like, but I imagine it's tremendously difficult and painful. <br /><br />I have nothing at all critical to say about you (or Baggini) doing whatever you can to connect with whomever you want to connect with (at least so long as you're not lying outright). But that's not the issue here.<br /><br />Neither Dagood nor I criticize or condemn Baggini <i>at all</i> for wanting to connect with theists in whatever way he feels is correct.<br /><br />There are people whose opinions about matters of fact are indeed so egregiously and obviously wrong — e.g. racists, sexists, homophobes — that moral condemnation is warranted rather than reasoned dialogue. Anyone who is a racist in the 21st century is not just mistaken, they are at best <i>willfully</i> ignorant; it's pointless to try to reason with the willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />Baggini implies in the quoted passage that "militant" atheists are in this same category of unreasoning bigotry. And your comments indicated to me that you make some similar distinction (although perhaps not on the same criteria as Baggini).<br /><br />Racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of "bigotry" aren't "inherently" wrong, they're wrong because it's a matter of established scientific truth that people of any race are not superior or inferior (in any way that matters to a civilized person) to people of any other race. It's a matter of established scientific truth that men are not inferior or superior to women. It's a matter of established scientific truth that homosexuals are not inferior or superior to heterosexuals. These beliefs are wrong because they are known — extremely well known — to be simply false.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, the beliefs Baggini cites are not just true, but <i>obviously</i> true. But at the very least, the beliefs are sufficiently controversial that to label them as obviously wrong is not just an honest mistake, but willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, all the more reprehensible from someone who represents himself as a professional philosopher.<br /><br />In a similar vein, to divide up the atheist movement into those who want to "dialogue" (good) and those who want to "go to war" (bad) implicitly accepts some sort of division similar to Baggini's. There is a subset of atheists substantial and organized enough to warrant criticism as a group who are so obviously wrong that their position deserves the pejorative "go to war".<br /><br />But this is simply false: there is no substantial, organized subset of atheists who want to "go to war" in even the metaphorical sense, and who deserve this kind of condemnation. It's especially insulting and infuriating since there is a substantial subset of the religious who are <i>literally</i> at war: they are literally killing people openly and explicitly because of their religious beliefs.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-75523046284333275582010-03-03T16:00:41.247-05:002010-03-03T16:00:41.247-05:00First, Paul, when I talk about bullshitting, I'...First, Paul, when I talk about bullshitting, I'm not trying to be insulting or rude. I'm an admirer of Richard Feynman, who <a href="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2010/03/cargo-cult-science.html" rel="nofollow">notes</a>, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." Or as Orwell observed, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."<br /><br />In my considered opinion, Baggini is not just mistaken, he is actually fooling himself. As both Feynman and Orwell note, it is very difficult <i>not</i> to fool oneself, so one cannot say that Baggini is himself "evil" for doing so. On the other hand, he represents himself as a public intellectual and professional philosopher, so one can neither excuse him from his self-chosen professional obligations, even if we can understand the reasons why he's fooling himself.<br /><br />Similarly, brain surgery is very difficult, and it's no shame if some particular person can't do it. But if someone <i>can't</i> do it, he shouldn't <i>actually</i> do it, or walk around saying he can... even if we know that he was enormously pressured by his parents to be a brain surgeon.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-47780520487960233922010-03-03T14:27:23.301-05:002010-03-03T14:27:23.301-05:00Mr. Bum, :)
No, I am not trying to defend Baggini...Mr. Bum, :)<br /><br />No, I am not trying to defend Baggini or BS you. I count Dagoods as a friend and also have a great deal of respect for you. I don't think I would get away with it even if I were inclined to do so. You guys are better and much more well informed debaters than I am on this topic. I wander over to this blog because I appreciate what Dagoods is doing, I think he does a real service. My participation, such as it is, is my way of trying to stay connected. <br /><br /> Maybe I should state that I agree with what Dagoods wrote and find myself concluding as did he:<br /><br />"Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite;..."<br /><br />I also find myself wondering if Baggini, as a former Christian, find's himself in similar straits as myself. I am non-theist, a deconvert. But I have a former wife and two sons who are still fundamentalist Christian. I still care about these people very deeply and find myself looking for ways to connect. With two of my family members it's a non issue, they refuse to have any contact with me as long as I am an infidel, their choice. One son does still speak with me. He reminds me regularly that I am going to hell because of my unbelief, but it isn't constant and when I can get him off topic we get along well. I guess I am accommodating him, but to me there is at least hope in the continued contact. I have a great deal of faith in the rational and hope at some point he will see his way clear of theism. <br /><br />It may not be relevant to the conversation and I am probably transferring a bit onto Baggini, but I think I get why he is accommodating to theists.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-58815881287625459432010-03-03T09:41:33.290-05:002010-03-03T09:41:33.290-05:00I wasn't framing a question of Theism vs. Athe...<i>I wasn't framing a question of Theism vs. Atheism, I was giving my take on Baggini as an individual.</i><br /><br />I understand. The problem, though is he's setting up the choices irrationally in the first place.<br /><br /><i>My read on Baggini is that he wants to dialogue with Theists vs. go to war with them...</i><br /><br />I am, you know, capable of reading English. I know what you're saying, I know what Baggini is saying, and you're both not correct.<br /><br />No one is saying Baggini ought to go to jail or be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. He's just wrong, and rather stupidly wrong at that; his intent is irrelevant. You don't have to defend him unless you want to convince us he's actually correct.<br /><br />We already know that Baggini is drawing an ethical distinction between the "good" way atheists should talk to theists and the "bad" way we shouldn't talk to theists. Simply substituting synonyms to restate that Baggini is making an ethical distinction is not at all helpful... we are all capable of using a thesaurus, and leads us to believe you are trying to bullshit us (and yourself) in the same way that Baggini is trying to bullshit us (and himself).Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-76224107771905726192010-03-03T06:32:32.698-05:002010-03-03T06:32:32.698-05:00Hi Barefoot Bum,
I wasn't framing a question ...Hi Barefoot Bum,<br /><br />I wasn't framing a question of Theism vs. Atheism, I was giving my take on Baggini as an individual. I was speaking of a particular "ist" not an "ism." I confess to indulging in hyperbole with my quip: "fundamental atheist." The notion of "fundamental atheism" is nonsensical.<br /><br />My read on Baggini is that he wants to dialogue with Theists vs. go to war with them, and I was playing with the word "jihad" ( the "Western understanding" as a 'holy war') tongue in cheek. Baggini seems to me to feel guilty about being an atheist. <br /><br />as to your comment:<br />"atheists just don't go to the extremes of killing people or intimidating them with violence and threats of violence."<br /><br />Ceausecu comes to mind as an atheist who exercised and advocated violence against theists. But again, I make a distinction between the believer and the belief, the ism and the ist. <br /><br />Don't both Theism and Atheism require the animation of a person to qualify as "militant?"paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-9763477270920420452010-03-02T14:15:50.706-05:002010-03-02T14:15:50.706-05:00I think he wants to practice detente with Theists ...<i>I think he wants to practice detente with Theists vs. waging jihad as a fundamental Atheist.</i><br /><br />That's a tendentious way of framing the question. There's just no possible way the "militant" atheist movement can be accurately described as a "jihad" in the ordinary Western understanding of the word. (In the sense that jihad just means "struggle", there's no reason why atheists <i>shouldn't</i> struggle with theism.)<br /><br />Furthermore, "fundamental atheism" is an oxymoron and the concept nonsensical. Perhaps you might mean "extremist", which would at least be meaninful, albeit completely incorrect: atheists just don't go to the extremes of killing people or intimidating them with violence and threats of violence.<br /><br /><i>I think his challenge is that he is not separating the believer from the belief.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but I think Baggini challenge is that he's an accommodationist jackass.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-5383031028810658382010-03-02T06:41:32.029-05:002010-03-02T06:41:32.029-05:00Baggini seems to be an advocate for the Rodney Kin...Baggini seems to be an advocate for the Rodney King denomination of Atheism. I think I understand his sentiment, I think he wants to practice detente with Theists vs. waging jihad as a fundamental Atheist.<br /><br /> I think his challenge is that he is not separating the believer from the belief. Maybe he needs to learn how to love the religious and hate the religion.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-34176188916014312462010-03-01T16:19:45.009-05:002010-03-01T16:19:45.009-05:00Jon,
I agree religious people can do beneficial t...Jon,<br /><br />I agree religious people can do beneficial things. That doesn’t make <i>the religion itself</i> beneficial. <br /><br />Curious, isn’t it, how we point out priests who molest children because they are placed in position of power. And then the Roman Catholic church covers it up. And we are informed they aren’t “true” Roman Catholics…that they aren’t practicing the “correct” religion. But when we point out good, helpful people, all of a sudden, they are included.<br /><br />Yet each is being influenced by their religion. We have to take the good with the bad. Sure, Roman Catholicism, as a religion, can result in providing food for the poor. Yet the same religious belief is depriving condoms. It is killing people with the same hands it is helping them for the same reason—religious belief. <br /><br />We look at the religion as a whole. Catholicism has its beneficial adherents, sure. It also has its Mother Teresa’s. It involves a belief priests (and bishops and cardinals and popes) cannot have sexual relations, resulting in sexual frustration, guilt, self-flagellation, etc. It has billions and billions and billions of dollars—and asks its congregations to give more for new pipe organ. It ostracizes, divides, battles, and politicizes through pontification. It suppresses opposition through fear.<br /><br />I know you are trying to show some balance…and I appreciate it…but if we can’t look at the “bad Catholics” as part of the equation, why must we look to the “good ones”?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-41138525009286785882010-02-28T12:56:38.603-05:002010-02-28T12:56:38.603-05:00[A] pretty good case can be made that the Roman Ca...<i>[A] pretty good case can be made that the Roman Catholic Church took courageous stances throughout Latin America during the Cold War years and faced some pretty serious persecution of their own for it.</i><br /><br />I don't know that you can make a good case for the <i>Church</i>; I think at best you can make a case for some particular priests.<br /><br />More importantly: did they do good <i>because of</i> their religion, <i>without regard</i> to their religion, or <i>in spite of</i> their religion?<br /><br />Religion is, of course, a human construct, and exhibits the full range of human strength and frailty. The moral case against religion is not that there is good the religious cannot do, but rather that there is evil that only the religious <i>can</i> do.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-77510033345543583512010-02-28T10:09:56.920-05:002010-02-28T10:09:56.920-05:00Many good points here. Let me say though that in ...Many good points here. Let me say though that in fairness a pretty good case can be made that the Roman Catholic Church took courageous stances throughout Latin America during the Cold War years and faced some pretty serious persecution of their own for it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero" rel="nofollow">Oscar Romero</a> is one example of dozens of priests executed for standing against the puppet right wing regimes imposed by the United States on Latin America.<br /><br />In the states though militant atheism is more warranted. Take Bob Dutko. Doesn't read opposing viewpoints, spouts ignorance very day demonizing people that think like me. Couple this with the fact that I have never once seen a case of state sponsored violence from our government that he didn't approve of. The combination is scary.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-54944581440665883242010-02-28T05:14:55.031-05:002010-02-28T05:14:55.031-05:00A militant muslim will blow himself up for his rel...A militant muslim will blow himself up for his religion. A militant christian will murder for his religion. A militant atheist will express his opinion on a point of view and admit he doesn't know everything but finds your philosophical points invalid and your pseudoscience unpersuasive.<br /><br />Obviously they all belong in the same group! Why? Because liberty is dangerous and could bring god's wrath upon us! That's even WORSE than a suicide bomber or a clinic bomber, etc. Muslims might blow up buildings and Christians might blow up clinics, but militant atheists cause every bad thing ever by asking for the "loving god"/"prince of peace"'s wrath!<br /><br />It all makes perfect sense if you have no sense. Why can't you infidels just trust us to institute theocracy? You just deny the truth!<br /><br />[/painfully close to reality mockery]Glock21https://www.blogger.com/profile/03963381850606106973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-70666739602651755332010-02-27T21:51:47.817-05:002010-02-27T21:51:47.817-05:00Yes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduct...<i>Yes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduction to Atheism” to make sure the quote was in context.</i><br /><br />Groovy. Any juicy quotations on systems (!) of rationality?<br /><br />Sadly, it's not at all difficult to believe a professional atheist philosopher would embrace such a jackassed concept. There is one and only one system of rationality. We can change it as we learn more, but we can't have two.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-39699536269719331762010-02-27T19:20:27.745-05:002010-02-27T19:20:27.745-05:00Yes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduct...Yes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduction to Atheism” to make sure the quote was in context.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-41041566112180466762010-02-27T16:22:13.570-05:002010-02-27T16:22:13.570-05:00Baggini essentially claims that religions are fals...<i>Baggini essentially claims that religions are false, but NOT false under a theist’s system of rationality...</i><br /><br />Sound like Plantinga. But I don't get that sense just from the quotation; are you referring to more of his work? It's been a while since I've read the jackass.<br /><br /><i>I would suspect the majority of non-theists are [militant].</i><br /><br />I dunno. The accommodationists seem to have substantial popularity, and of course the "moderate" religious are pushing the accommodation theme big time (e.g. the Templeton Foundation).Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-45834340066038403712010-02-27T14:24:53.166-05:002010-02-27T14:24:53.166-05:00Baggini essentially claims that religions are fals...Baggini essentially claims that religions are false, but NOT false under a theist’s system of rationality, therefore we should not be dogmatic against it. Of course, using the concept we cannot dogmatically inform the insane they are Napoleon, because under THEIR system of rationality, they could be.<br /><br />He then claims we cannot look at the harm of religion for the same reason, because it is not false under their belief. So if slavery is acceptable under my rationality…<br /><br />I’m not sure where the line crosses from “atheist” to “militant atheist”…but if this is it, I am quite sure I am on the “militant atheist” side. I would suspect the majority of non-theists are.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-40706344973118704812010-02-27T12:45:50.283-05:002010-02-27T12:45:50.283-05:00Julian Baggini is a horse's ass.
The differen...Julian Baggini is a horse's ass.<br /><br />The difference between the "militant" atheists and militant fundamentalist religious is that the fundamentalist religious are <i>eliminationist</i>: they want to wipe out not just "heresy" and "infidelity"; they want to actually kill the heretics and infidels <i>en masse</i> or threaten them into submission.<br /><br />Not even the caricatures of "totalitarian" atheists (e.g. Stalin) were eliminationist towards the religious.<br /><br />BTW: If you want, I'll use this entry for CotG.<br /><br />You don't say it explicitly, but I will: Julian Baggini is a horse's ass.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-66445668093600241332010-02-27T12:19:31.832-05:002010-02-27T12:19:31.832-05:00Great post Dagwood. Nothing to add, but great pos...Great post Dagwood. Nothing to add, but great post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com