I Wish Russell Simmons Were an Atheist
by Michael WilsonRussell Simmons confuses me. He’s one of the finest examples we have of an American kid from the most difficult circumstances imaginable hustling and struggling and pulling himself up by his own bootstraps to create a life for himself that is, in a word, extraordinary. Yet instead of inspiring other poor African American kids who are in the position he once was with his story of hard work and perseverance, Simmons spreads religious silliness and tells those kids to put their hope in government. And last week, he did both at the same time. I wish Simmons were an atheist.
As many of you who frequent this blog know (and often condemn me for), I believe there is no god. That’s quite different from saying “I don’t believe in God.” When I say I believe there is no god, I mean that in this vast universe (or maybe multiverse) I don’t choose to not believe in a god, but that there is no god to not believe in. There’s a distinction, and I’m very certain where I stand. It’s deeply personal to me, and I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. Sometimes people need to believe in something more, I suppose, even if it’s not real. And while I recognize I’m in the minority, and I’m happy to argue religion and god with you, I won’t push my thoughts on you unless you ask. But I wish that Russell Simmons could put aside the idea of God or Allah for a while. It would be more honest and it would certainly help a lot more people.
Simmons, who has said that Allah, working through the Nation of Islam has helped young criminals change their lives for the better, implied last week that God was going to punish America if we didn’t do what President Obama wants us to do. He said that we were under indictment, apparently by an invisible father figure who really likes socialism and doesn’t want anyone to achieve Simmons’ level of success. God, according to Simmons’ ideology, apparently wants us all to be equally miserable. (God actually wants us all dead, given that until we invented science and started figuring out how to extend our lives, we died in our twenties. But that’s another article.) Simmons actually believes that his god, who created all of existence and (as most believers tell me when we discuss the matter) created the whole of the good in the universe, will hurt us if we don’t do what one man in one tiny little whisper of time (cosmically speaking) tells us to do. As someone who thinks religion is mostly primitive superstition and performance theater, I can’t help but be afraid.
If Russell Simmons could put aside what he learned from his “second father” Louis Farrakhan and his nutty superstitions, including a 6 a.m. prayer and meditating in the “zen room” he showed off on “MTV Cribs,” he could really transform peoples’ lives. If he could stop believing that Allah or God or Jesus (Simmons doesn’t publicly define himself by any religion) handed him his beautiful life and recognize that it came from his own hard work, understanding of and ability to cross cultural barriers, tremendous foresight, and perfecting the hustle he developed as a street kid before transforming it into slick, successful and legitimate business practices, he might be able to inspire others to aspire to create the same for themselves. He might also recognize that Allah hasn’t ever helped a single young criminals turn his life around, but rather it was the desire within those young men to aspire to more, to clean up and work hard.
It is only the will of people to make the world better that ever actually makes the world better. It’s not Jesus who sends those checks to the kids Sally Struthers used to parade around on late night TV, it’s you. Moses hasn’t fed anyone in Bangladesh in a long, long time. The Buddha never helped anyone with AIDS, but Penn and Teller have. And it’s not Allah who gives clean water and sanitation to third-world nations, it’s Matt Damon. Batman and Superman aren’t going to save the world and God isn’t going to destroy it. We’ll have to do all of that. And for the most part, we try to do good things for people we love, and sometimes for people we don’t even know, as someone did for me this past week.
Simmons’ apocalyptic statement last week really scares me. It scares me because it discounts mankind as a whole, and places our collective destiny in the non-existent hands of an invisible man who lives in the sky. It scares me even more, however, because it uses and abuses the irrational fear many people have of punishment at the hands of whatever god to push a political agenda that directly contradicts Simmons own life experience and the foundation of a country that gave him the chance to achieve success most of us can’t even imagine. But try to imagine it for a moment: Imagine being able to buy anything in the world you want. Or give as much money as you want to any cause or charity or individual you want. Or to be able to take your children anywhere in the world you want at a moment’s notice. That’s Russell Simmons’ life.
Now imagine you have created all of that through your own hard work and intelligence and you tell people they must believe in an invisible man or face destruction. And then you use the power you have built from less-than-nothing to encourage people to follow a man whose policies would have kept you from achieving what you have worked so hard for and that would condemn those people who you could otherwise inspire to a life where hard work no longer means anything and excellence is a distant memory. Like I said, Russell Simmons confuses me.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
208 Comments
When you pour the pure water of faith into the rusty vessel called man, you can't blame the faith for pouring out of the vessel tainted. This sort of dispute is exactly why people should be allowed to come to faith on their own without trying to sell their way as the only way. God doesn't take sides in human politics; he wants every person to be free to follow him or not as they choose. If God wanted obedient servants, he'd have been content with the angels.
As to charity and good works, God wants us to give of ourselves, not to be forced to give by someone else.
"those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky". I've never met anyone who believes this. I'm religious and I don't believe this. Maybe it's just one of those phrases that atheist love to repeat, a mantra, if you will.
Maybe you're just being flippant. Who cares if you don't believe in God? Just say you are not religious or spiritual and leave it at that. The "dude in the sky" is truly a figment of the atheists' imagination. By the way, if Simmons were an atheist, he'd just be a run of the mill communist. God help us!
Good article, but:
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. Sometimes people need to believe in something more, I suppose, even if it’s not real."
Maybe people condemn you because of lines like that and not your atheistic belief, Mr. Wilson. I wouldn't dare condescend to anyone's beliefs like that even if I disagreed with it.
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky…"
You know, I'm an atheist, too, and I say that you shouldn't do that. You could have — a lot easier — simply written something like, "I don't really begrudge believers," without the insult.
How come you couldn't resist that? It makes it kind of hard to take you at your word.
It’s deeply personal to me, and I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. Sometimes people need to believe in something more, I suppose, even if it’s not real.
Oh come on, you can be honest. You do begrudge us our views, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to be so condescending.
Those common atheist snarks about "invisible men in the sky" or "imaginary friends" or the like always sounds a little strained and forced to me. As if they're not really convinced that they're right, and they're whistling past the graveyard with their fingers in their ears. "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! INVISIBLE MAN! UNICORNS! LA LA LA LA!"
"Jesus or Allah or whichever figment of your imagination you worship must exist somewhere."
More arrogance and condescention. Why don't you just call all believers stupid and spare us the two paragraph charade?
I guess rational thought is just too much, too soon, for too many.
I still stand with my Christian brothers and sisters to try to save this country from Obama and his ilk. Of all the natural rights, the human right to property is one of the most precious. Dims act as if that right means nothing. They're the flippant ones.
"Oh yeah, take it from him and him and him; they've got plenty. Oh, yeah, I select you and you and you and you to receive the property I just stole from him and him and him. Will you vote for me, please, next time around? Oh, no, I'm not attempting to buy your vote. I'm an ethical, upstanding, noble, humanitarian Democrat who only wants to help my fellow humans."
I guess rational thought is just too much, too soon, for too many.
I still stand with my Conservative Christian brothers and sisters to try to save this country from Obama and his ilk. Of all the natural rights, the human right to property is one of the most precious. Dims act as if that right means nothing. They're the flippant ones.
"Oh yeah, take it from him and him and him; they've got plenty. Oh, yeah, I select you and you and you and you to receive the property I just stole from him and him and him. Will you vote for me, please, next time around? Oh, no, I'm not attempting to buy your vote. I'm an ethical, upstanding, noble, humanitarian Democrat who only wants to help my fellow humans."
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Fernando Colon. Fernando Colon said: I Wish Russell Simmons Were an Atheist http://bit.ly/QcqhF [...]
"I guess rational thought is just too much, too soon, for too many."
Are you kidding me? You're starting to sound like Bill Maher now.
[...] the rest here: I Wish Russell Simmons Were an Atheist This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I certainly don't think believers are stupid. They are like all of us, in many senses: Afraid of this world and our eventual deaths, bound by past teachings that go back to childhood, of good intent to help their human brothers and sisters.
That said, your beliefs don't make any sense. It's no favor to you for me to pretend that they do.
Mr. Wilson – I agree with you: religion or even personal belief (as you define it for yourself) is indeed…PERSONAL, and I, as a Christian, will not presume to debate what you have formed for yourself through your own experience and education.
However, I'd like to throw in my two cents and its less a quibble with what youve said than it is making a distinction of my own: it is of my faith that those Good things that "I" do (and I WILL presume to speak in a broader sense and use "I" to mean the general Christian population) do NOT come from me, but the inspiration for it comes from Outside myself – that I have the ability to receive from a Spirit the impulse to "do the right thing."
Mr. Limbaugh also says "talent on loan from God" for a good reason and it harkens back to this "Spirit." No talent or gift that I have was created by myself – it was in spiritu – given from an Outside. If Id been able to create talents and gifts for myself, I would not be sitting here as a housewife and writer, but Id be in the thick of Egypt, digging up Imhotep's lost tomb…or I'd be the famous forensic anthropologist that Hollywood is making a TV series out of. These were things I aspired to be, but found I do not have the talent for that as much as I have the talent for other things. In my faith, I was given these talents for a reason, and it is up to me to apply the discernment and will to use them as they were meant to be used.
Having said all THAT, I agree totally – I wish Simmons was an atheist of the Obama religion he is promoting. There is something sick going on in the country now, an infection that is showing symptoms of a deeper problem.
Michael Wilson Hates Religion – Coming Soon To A Theater Near You
"I will tolerate you just long enough to get what we both want from each other, but after that I'm gone"
so the uneasy alliance remains in place
Why do Athiests/Democrats/other Denominations begruge me my stupid beliefs and yet I never begrudge them theirs. I think you are wrong but I'm not going to belittle you for it. I will try to explain it as best i can, but at the end of the day, we will propbably not convince each other of very much.
I really enjoy hearing a different take on something it will often make me think.
Why the animosity?
Obama's conversion because of a church's organization rather than it's teachings (taking him at face value here) seems sad to me. It is no different than my Sister-in-law converting so she could be married in the cool Synagogue building. (the Rabbi didn't seem to care what their faith was as long as they went through the ceremony. And that to me is even more sad.) If as a professed believer you are going to convert, shouldn't it be for a deeper reason?
Of course the Athiest might say it really doesn't matter, but the political expediency/photo op motivation is repugnant to me.
esgaroth and mr. wilson,
i'm glad mr. simmons is not an atheist….i just imagine how much worse mr. simmons would be without it and how much better mr. wilson would be with it….just my two cents…..
I get your point, but mine was to say that I wish he were an atheist of Obama. If he chooses to worship Allah, I have no quarrel with that. Its the Marxism/cultism that he displays that I have a problem with. Obama is one of those cult personalities that the Bible warned us about and I wish Simmons had the atheism to disbelieve Obama.
You wrote: "I will tolerate you just long enough to get what we both want from each other, but after that I'm gone."
If you're ascribing that attitude to me, I can't imagine why. I don't belittle you for believing. I don't want to be rid of you. I don't view you as a useful idiot. I see the faithful as (generally) good, smart people who live with some pretty heavy falsehoods.
Politics and religion are in no way intertwined, at least in my mind. I am pleased and happy to know every political Conservative in my life, of any religious stripe whatever.
Believers say they accept their tenets on faith, and that science is either incomplete or wrong. Still, if one tiny bit of science even SEEMS to support their faith, they trumpet it as "evidence." To me, faith requires no evidence and evidence destroys faith. My favorite believers are those who would never use government to "help" religion, in general or in specific (to their particular brand of faith).
Great job!!!!!!!!!!! We've got to be much more aggressive with Atheism. God isn't in the sky or the dirt–he isn't. Religion is Leukemia and the world has a full blown case.
Oddly enough, many Christians say very similar things about Muslims or Wiccans, and vice versa. Heck, there are Protestants who say very similar things about Catholics with their "relics" and "intercessionary prayers". Everyone's atheist about a whole host of gods; atheists just disbelieve in one extra god.
Well, you certainly responded to the most important part of my comment. Well, I guess it was most important to you, because the rest of it was just tripe, you know, pointing out how much all political Conservatives have in common.
Bill Maher is a goon who happens to be right in one narrow part of his outlook. I certainly hope I never start believing in magic, the way he does. I place my reliance on science (hey, I busted a rhyme).
ok yeah agressive on my part
since morals are what much of religion is about it is difficult for many of us to set that aside when it comes to politics, because it deals with many issues that border on morality.
I might do the same if it wern't for a sympathetic streak for the non-mainstreamers (I apparently belong to a denominaion that is quite disliked by much of the country)
That is why i like a Libertarian flavor to my politics. It seems to hold a "how, where or what they may" type of attitude.
you can think I have a diseased brain all you want. You have that freedom. I won't insult your intellegence, and all I ask in return is that you not insult mine.
I wish you no harm but you say your beliefs are stupid. So, why can't I say they are stupid? Suppose I said kids should eat 3 pounds of mud everyday. Are you going to tell me –Oh, that's OK. You see, Atheists see religion as eating mud.
It's either that or an accidental walking around bag of chemicals whose highest form of existence is Bill Maher that exists on an accidental clump of dirt.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jaguarhorse
I'm an atheist too, man, but this isn't the way to talk about it. I used to get angry with religion too, now I'm past it. 90%+ of people will always be religious. It's human nature. Ask yourself if you want to be a minority in a highly religious area or if you'd rather live in Berkeley, CA, which is essentially like living under Islam. Progressivism is a religion and it's not tolerant of your dissent. Christians do tolerate dissent, and that's the best-case scenario you can hope for. Simmons is trying to put socialism in the spot where Christianity is in people. That's exactly what Marxists have been doing since day one. You can't fill that hole in people with nothing. You don't have that hole and never did, but most people do. They need an Answer, a moral structure that is as real as physics. To me and you it seems painfully silly. But ignore that the hole exists and expect people to leave it empty is folly. It's best to hope for them to fill it with something constructive, like Christianity, and just get out of the way of it.
Did the ability to gauge sarcasm leave you like a belief in God did?
while you work very hard to create the impression of an "enlightened athiest" you in fact are no such thing. When you refer to the concept of God as "an invisible man in the sky" you are simply dismissing the belief in God as something quite idiotic.
So, own up to it and stop lying about your true stance.
As for me, I am open to both sides of the God argument. What is the downside?
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. "
When you imagine other people's version of God as an invisible man that lives in the sky, it becomes pretty clear that you DO begrudge those who believe in something.
…I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky."
Good, because that's exactly NO ONE. If you're going to criticize religion, it's best if you first accurately represented it.
See I have to disagree with you on that, the fact that Simmons is using religion as a shield to protect his warped views on politics just goes to prove he is not a truely religious man. Putting wrapping paper on dirt doesn't make the dirt look better anymore than wrapping religion around a political ideal.
If religion is leukemia, then atheists like you are herpes.
I have been an agnostic for most of my life and also a conservative/classical liberal. I lack the capacity to have faith in some idea that cannot be proved; however, I also know the limitations of my intelligence and I know I am not so wise as to be able to claim I have final knowledge about the most important question man has ever asked: does God exist. I believe in the necessity of freedom and liberty for man to seek his own happiness and also to truly do good works. Like John Stuart Mill, I believe no act done to help another can truly be called good unless it was done entirely from free will and without belief in some later reward. I also like to think that if God does exist the greatest gift [he] would have given mankind was that of free will, because it is only with free will that man has the freedom and liberty to do good acts.
If religion is leukemia, then atheists like you are a bad case of herpes.
The Evil Left has even hijacked faith — take Micheal Moore's claim to be a Christian! (I know Christians, and you sir ARE NO CHRISTIAN!) and the Black Liberation Left use the Black-Faith Card like it's equally dangerous The Race Card — it's all a hoax — it's all about an complete Godless Leftist Takeover.
THIS ATHEIST SOMETIMES HATES ATHEISM…!!
BREAKING NEWS — Example: A family member dies, and his grieving child comes to me for comfort.
I wish, oh how I wish, that I could tell that child that, one day, he will have a miraculous reunion with the loved one he just lost. Just that one application would make all the other crazy stuff about religion more or less acceptable.
I envy the true believers that aspect of religion, the part where you get to cheat death. Yet, I have chosen the only path that makes any sense whatever, to me, that of relying on mankinds best efforts rather than wish-thinking and fantasy.
The comments on this page are the issue with there being no conversation left to be had in this country anymore. Stop being personally offended by everything and look at the issue. We all can't fit in these boxes everyone tries to put us in. This is someone's view of religion, believe it or not it isn't a personal attack on you the person reading it unless you see yourself as a cookie cutter and in that case there is no hope for you.
This country is going to crap because everyone gets offended by everything. People know what instills fear in others when getting on a plane yet they still do it and when arrested sue the airline and make money. I was "personally offended". How to deal with your feelings should be taught in high school. It's not a right for your feelings to never be hurt just like it's not your right to walk through life not being offended.
LISTEN with something other than emotion and you may actually find yourself seeing a new perspective.
Ironic isn't it that Simmon's Islam is a violently intolerant unsecular religion that treats half of their adherents as mere chattel. How apt of him to frame any lack of support for Obama with God's wrath being visited upon us. Simmon reveals himself to be intolerant and unsecular to the core.
I'm not a practicing Christian but, I'll stand behind the gifts it bestowed on our western culture, not the least of which was Christ's permission to form secular societies with "render unto Caesar….." That's a permission that the Islamic world mired in intolerance, tribalism and violence desperately needs.
All right, now I can have a nice discourse with you.
A lot of atheists (you and pundit SE Cupp included) seem to envy those of faith, and it seems to be very genuine when they say it but they just can't go back because their reasoning won't let them and religion left the station a long time ago.
See, I'm dubious of the whole "miraculous reunion" because I don't picture Heaven or an afterlife like that. Hell, I'm not even sure there is an afterlife, but I don't the thought of one to be religious of have a belief in God.
Take care.
Yeah, he lost me on that one too. "Oh, poor little superstitious savages, you cannot be brought into the light of reason no matter what we do." Spare me.
LOL — I'm hardly a well-reasoned person. I'm a jumbled-up mess. But thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm certainly striving to get to that stage, the "oh-so-reasoned" part of life.
Excellent points, and very well made ones, indeed…!!
Thank you for the incisive comments.
Well said.
Personally, I go to church once a week for worship because I know I have a lot to be thankful for and I wish to express gratitude for it. I do this by attending service, and by performing volunteer work in the community, through the church. I am responsible for my actions, and my inactions. This is all part of my faith, just as much as the sacraments.
God did not intend for us to be slaves or blind followers. He gave us reason and intellect to use in our development. He only wants voluntary worship and love from Man.
"Progressivism is a religion and it's not tolerant of your dissent."
Amen.
Okay, what if I were to say atheists are "immoral heathens who are certain to rot in Hell as a result of what I believe their skewed views?" (Which I don't believe)
That kind of talk doesn't foster any understanding or discourse. It's bomb-throwing.
Here's how I view atheism: You came a different hypothesis than I did. Certain evidence and reason swayed you towards your views, and I respect that.
"Simmons is trying to put socialism in the spot where Christianity is in people. That's exactly what Marxists have been doing since day one. You can't fill that hole in people with nothing."
Marxists like to fill empty holes with people. They're called "mass graves".
” When I say I believe there is no god, I mean that in this vast universe (or maybe multiverse) I don’t choose to not believe in a god, but that there is no god to not believe in."
It is not uncommon for an Athiest to make some claim against religious belief by labeling it "blind faith". However, what the OP has written above is far and away the greatest statement of "Blind Faith" that can be made. To make a claim of what may or may not exist in "this vast universe" is the height of hubris. He discounts the Christian's belief in an all-knowing GOD but then tries to pass an attempt at omniscience as a "personal belief".
cont.
I cannot speak for any other Christian, but for me. There was a man who lived, who died and who rose again to life. Who appeared to individuals, to the Twelve and to hundreds more. A man who walked with them and talked with them. Who they could touch. Who they could sit and eat with. These people in turn left home and country to tell others what they saw and through that action changed the world in the name of Jesus Christ.
You can argue that you don't believe but learn a little humility and realize that you do not know what the universe holds, much less anything of the ONE who made it.
I think white lies are OK. Or are you just brutally honest in every instance of your life?
You should read some Polkinghorne and some D'Souza. Try it out.
And some people who are religious do believe just that! I'm not offended by someone saying that just like I'm not offended at this authors VIEWPOINT of atheism. I know what I believe and to be personally offended by how another perceives what I believe due to my own experience is ridiculous and would make me wonder if my beliefs are that strong. I know what I believe. Your opinion of how I came to that hypothesis means nothing, but I'll listen.
Glad you liked it.
I wouldn't dare argue how anyone came to their religious decisions.
When your wife has to wear a sheet you will know.
you are right, I usually preach that myself. So I recognize myself, somewhat, in what you wrote. On the other hand belaboring the issue to the point of insult is another thing.
People should not be quick to take offense, nor should we be quick to state things we know to be offensive.
Like the commedian hiding behind "well it is just my job" we should use the "you are oversensitive" response sparingly
"It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian." — G.K. Chesterton
I don't have enough faith to be an Athiest. God exist everywhere, at all times. The fact that the concept evades you means you don't understand that which you don't believe. God loves us enough to make our own decisions because a forced relationship is no relationship. How loving to you think God would be if he kept everyone locked up "safe" and didn't allow them to live their life? You assume life is the greatest thing so death is a bad thing ("doomed us to die"). The life after death is far superior to what we have now.
Please prove your statements/ideas, Thanks
so all religious practitioners are Fundamentalist Theocrats who opress women?
Yeah people to point to the sky after they hit a homerun or score a touchdown or score a goal. I don't know where anyone would get the idea of a "dude in the sky".
I will meet you on our common ground. Russell Simmons would benefit young men and women across the country by talking about hard work, perseverance, dedication, focus, etc…..believe in self, and strength of character, treating others as you wish to be treated, avoiding drugs and other self destructive habits….Could not agree with you more on these lines…….
Mmm I think is funny to hear your statements about people of faith. Sad to see you such things that make you seem so uninformed. Religion and faith in God are two totally different things maybe you'll come to understand it and if you can please try and not belittle people of faith atheist seemto have a problem with that and keep their hatred for people of faith
Craig
An atheist is by nature an individualist. I don't believe any form of collectivism or group thought. I think it is dangerous. The fact that so many of you get offended by any perceived slight of your group think is reminiscent of liberal incredulity, not rational individual free-think.
-I am thinking of preemptively attacking all the obvious replies to this, but I think my efforts would be futile.
If my concept of God was as simple as a man in the sky, I wouldn't believe either.
But it's not. It's much bigger than that.
One question…..what about the resurrection of Jesus? Hundreds of witnesses – Biblical and non-biblical, miracle after miracle. Response?
If the replies are so obvious would that not indicate the weakness of your statements or at least places where you might reinforce them?
"I don't believe any form of collectivism or group thought."
So why have you previously referred to yourself as an "Objectivist"? Do you hold to the philsophy espoused by Ayn Rand and if so how is that not a form of group thought?
"The fact that so many of you get offended by any perceived slight of your group think is reminiscent of liberal incredulity, not rational individual free-think."
And yet judging by your comments history, whenever an athiest is put to task for attacking or belittling religious belief you come to their defense. How is that any different than a Christian coming to the defense of religious belief?
Yeah, Isaac Newton, Galileo, John Locke, Thomas Acquinas – all these wacky Christians just don't understand rational thought. How old are you HumanPersonJr – fifteen?
Why do you have to be much more aggressive? I don't believe there is an Easter Bunny, either, but I don't feel the need to aggressively push my opinion.
(And, before you throw out that old canard about "how religion has killed more people than…" learn your history).
I find bits and pieces of many philosophies that inform my belief structure; Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which celebrates the individual, is one of them.
Good question.
I am simply defending the idea of individualism and the right to pursue individual freedom without persecution based on a collectivist belief. A philosophy that promotes individuality will always receive my defense. By it's own nature, religion or dogma seem to be collectivist. Writing books about the virtues of individuality or discussing those views don't seem to me, to be collectivist. Creating a religion to control the masses for the greater good, well that's another thing.
I try to be as consistent in my beliefs as I can. I think the means are important.
I certainly enjoy the challenges. Especially if the point out hypocrisy on my part.
I can only assume that you are willfully ignorant to all the religious based charities and organizations that go around the world helping people. How many atheist foundations are there to help fight AIDs in Africa? Compared to how many religious based ones?
It's so amusing when smug atheists say, with absolute authority, that there can be no God or gods, not realizing that shows you for what you are, close minded, small, and petty. But hey, I'm just a religious nut who isn't doing enough, apparently, because I'm not smart enough to not believe in God and help my fellow man. Whatever that means.
If only we could get rid of all that "god" nonsense and have a society based upon living for your fellow man! It worked great for the Russians and Chinese circa 1950's, right?
My, my, you show a different face from the one I debated in that other article, HumanPersonJr.
"What's wrong with assuming they live in the sky?" Well, I will speak for Christianity, since I am a Christian and all.
Nowhere in the Christian faith does it say that God lives "in the sky". It does say He dwells in heaven, but it also says that He existed before all time(i.e. before the creation of the universe). So, He does not "exist" in this universe like a tree or a planet exists. So, to say that God is merely "a man in the sky" is not only wrong in regards to Christian doctrine, it's incredibly condescending, meant to imply those that believe in God are childish or stupid.
Also, you should know better speaking of the heart. When Christians speak of the heart, we don't mean the physical organ, we mean your inmost being. You're center, as it were, from whence you life comes forth. We call it the heart, because that is the physical organ that represents it best. Without a heart, no one can live. That is what we mean when Jesus lives in our hearts. Not that He's hanging out in one chamber or any nonsense like that.
God does Love us. How did he doom us to die in our twenties? Wait, I thought there was no God? How could something that does not exist doom us to die? You're all over the place here. Which is it? Is there no God(which makes you a fool for arguing with insane, delusional person like me) or is a God and He is cruel and wicked? Make up your mind.
Also, the church put its thumb on scientific advancement? Please, that argument is laughable. In which society did science, as we know it today, really take off? Christian medieval Europe. Why not the Chinese? Or Indians? Or Africans? They had been around a long time before western civilization. The reason why science, as we know it today, came about is because Christianity allowed for the world view that there is a God who created and ordered the universe to act in a certain way and that we could figure out what those ways were. Without that, there's no reason to think this world or all of the universe should act in an ordered and structured way.
You show your true colors in this post. Your anger, hatred, and disdain. Fortunately, you don't have to live that way and you know what you need to do. Until next time, God bless.
Hmm, I made several statements so the vagueness of your request makes this difficult. However, perhaps if I used the word virtuous instead of good, it might be easier. If a person donates to charity, a good act, but only to get the tax break or to be able to publicly proclaim their generosity, then that person is not acting out of true concern for others but rather for some later reward. If a person volunteers for some worthy cause, a good act, because they can tax deduct their time or because of public notice then again they are acting for their own ultimate good and the volunteering is simply the means to obtain that end. If a person does good acts in the hope of receiving "reward" from their God, then once again the good acts are simply the means with which they obtain some ultimately beneficial end. The acts are not done solely for the good of the recipient but more for the good of the doer. True virtue and altruism is doing good acts simply because those acts are the right thing to do not because there is a promise of some near or distant reward.
What people want and desire by nature sometimes does exist. C. S. Lewis's "argument from desire" reasons thusly:
The intrinsic needs of human beings (e.g., hunger, thirst, sexual desire) are fulfilled by extrinsic realities (food, drink, sexual intercourse). Since the vast majority of human beings have an intrinsic need to experience transcendence, there is likely an extrinsic transcendent reality (God) to fulfill this need.
Rather than committing the wishful thinking fallacy, Lewis's argument may be viewed as a type of inference to the best explanation about human nature.
Ardent non-believers will not accept any evidence presented to them. Even eye witnesses to the miracles Jesus performed, including raising people from the dead, did not convince them He was the Messiah. It is very difficult for one who trusts reason to believe it can lead one to believing in the supernatural.
Without God, there is no rational basis for human liberty. Atheistic proponents of the intrinsic rights of man unwittingly ride on the wave caused by the splashdown of the incarnation into human history. Nihilism (the only logical conclusion of atheism) does not produce freedom.
To criticize Theism based upon the words and actions of this Simmons person strikes me as akin to criticizing Medicine based upon the conduct of Josef Mengele. Any idea can be either misunderstood, or understood well, and then manipulated to achieve the opposite of its true intent. I am confident that whatever agenda this guy has (Simmons, that is) he could find many means to promote it; if he is using Religion, it is only because that is what seems most expedient.
"That's a permission that the Islamic world mired in intolerance, tribalism and violence desperately needs."
That's why I agree with Anne Coulter: convert them to Christianity, tell them to "come to Jesus" – Christian believe the blood-price has already been paid.
Excellent remarks!
You say
"When I say I believe there is no god, I mean that in this vast universe (or maybe multiverse) I don’t choose to not believe in a god, but that there is no god to not believe in. There’s a distinction, and I’m very certain where I stand."
Fair enough, but respectfully, let me ask you this:
How is it possible for you to posit a logical negative?
It seems to me that the only rational way you could do that is to have all knowledge of the entire universe at the same time to assert conclusively that there is no god. If you don't have that knowledge, isn't it possible that god exists, just not in a place you know about? If you *do* possess that knowledge, aren't *you* god?
I guess what I'm getting at is that from a logic/reasoning perspective the best you can do is say "I don't think there's a god" or "I don't see evidence of god"
Of course, as one on the other side of this issue, I see God pretty much everywhere I look, but then, that's me.
If someone said they really believe in the Easter Bunny would you challenge that, you think? If someone told you kids should eat 3 pounds of mud. Would you just let it pass? Atheists feel religion does the same amount of damage as eating mud. I like Idaho french fries BTW.
I think we need to stop giving religion a free pass. There is no evidence of god — and don't say the bible. See my Utube video on angels at newstogod. Take care
I have to say this about Russel Simmons. He's a very accomplished man, and there is much that could be said about an example that he could be setting for young people. I saw him speak at a leadership conference a couple of years ago and he expressed some good concepts about providing financial services for poor people.
Unfortunately he was essentially incoherent – he could not string two sentences together in a sensible way. I don't know if he was having mental problems or was under the influence of mind-alterers, but the example he set that day was not a good one, and it made me sad.
Me too!
Geesh, I wish I could be that sure of anything! So, we agree to disagree – but not aggressively, I hope.
Atheists accuse Christians of proselytizing – isn't that what you're doing?
Just as liberals say there are no absolutes – absolutely.
Glad you enjoy the fries – unfortunately I'm an IdahoGal stuck in California!
Hey Russell Simmons! My God can beat up your God! This may sound infantile. Well it is.
And infusing religion into politics is a perfect way to start wars. I'd say check your high school history book but it probably blames America for every war since Moses walked…oh never mind. And the New Cold War is internally now American.
thank you for that – yup, I'm a believer, but not of some old dude up in the sky with a long grey/white beard in a white robe with really cool air-jesus sandals handing down life lessons. anyways, your line if a much better fit.
Mr Wilson, you have posted intellectual gobbledy-gook. You have confused quirks of English grammar for Grand Truths about the universe. "I believe there is no god, not I don't believe in God." yes yes we all know the difference between the open mindedness of agnostics and the supposed inversed closed mindedness of atheists, but you really suck at demonstrating the difference. You come off as somebody who could only pull off the cliff-notes versions of Wittgenstein, Quine, and Austin, if at all. Pathetic….
I don't know that you can say Atheists are individualists by nature, not uniformly, anyway — what do you make of the phenomenon of Atheists starting "freethinking" summer camps for children and social groups with structures closely resembling those of modern Christian churches?
To the contrary, I think your average "new atheist" is perfectly cognizant that it's a lot easier to get a movement going if you create a social structure and immerse the next generation in your beliefs while deconstructing opposing beliefs before they encounter them for themselves. Else why make the summer camps, why send your children to classes deconstructing other peoples beliefs, why put up the signs on buses?
For that matter, what do you make of the rigid socialist structures that were started in Russia and China of which Atheism was a mandatory part? The idol of the state, of the collective, is jealous and capricious. The statist, whether religious or atheist, ultimately wants and needs to place this idol on the highest throne in the heart of the masses. For the religious socialist, this means attempting to ignore how the state replaces God as a source of strength while cherry picking the parts of genuine religious teaching that SEEM to support his agenda. For the atheist socialist this means simply denying God exists and that humanity requires a REAL savior, in the form of the state.
I submit that, all things being equal, the atheist socialist will come by his socialism more naturally and easily (and more honestly) than his religious counterpart — the religious socialist must strain to harmonize his political idol with his god, while the atheist is under no such burden.
For what it's worth, what you say here is in line Christ's teachings, especially the part about doing things for public notice or other earthly rewards.
Also, as a Christian, I would say:
We do virtuous acts not in hope of receiving a future reward from God; but, in gratitude for what he has already done for us.
I am in the bible belt there's a church on every corner and people pray for bowel movements here. somebody's got to say something. What nonsense.
Many times when I listen to my "fellow atheists" I'm reminded of an old story I once heard. Once there was a man with a snake for a pet. His mother was worried that he spent too much time with his snake, and not enough time with other people. So she enrolled him in a herpetology club, so that he could gather with other people who liked reptiles. One day she asked him how it was going, and was he making any friends. He replied, no, mother. Why not, she asked? He replied, well, basically we all sit around at the meetings looking around and thinking, I know why I like snakes, but why does HE like snakes?
That was my first impression of this article. The author's idea that Russell Simmons would be better off as an atheist, presumably ridiculing people who believe in an "invisible man in the sky" as opposed to whatever he's saying now, doesn't sound like an improvement to me. Also, I think the author of the original post misses something when he states that the only reason for success is people's own hard work. I worked hard for years, up to and including the time I lost my job several months ago when I was laid off. There are 3.5 million other Americans who were hard working and now are struggling along without jobs or the prospect of one. We're "unlucky," not lazy or delusional. The belief that God or Allah is helping people succeed seems to me to reflect the idea of humility — that in spite of all of our best efforts, it might just not be enough. Humility, I've found, is something sorely lacking in a lot of my fellow snake-lovers, also known as atheists.
I myself was raised as a Catholic, and have experienced both periods of devout belief and lack of same. For the past several decades, I've been an atheist. However, I'll never forget the event that set me free of the feeling that I had to prosletyze about it. Years ago, my mother was visiting from out of town during Christmastime. She asked me to take her to midnight mass, which I more or less begrudgingly agreed to. At the time, I was of the it's-all-a-delusion mindset about religion common to many atheists, and the idea of going to church made me wary. However, my experience at the midnight mass was one of being charmed by the fact that here I was in a pleasant community of people who were very happy to share their own happiness with strangers. The music was nice, the atmosphere one of love and acceptance, and at one point in the service people smiled at one another and happily shook hands, wishing peace to the total strangers in their midst. And what could be evil or delusional about any of that?
Since then I've learned not to ridicule people for having something that makes them content and able to live at peace with one another. On the other hand, I've also learned (via 9/11) to be skeptical of believers who use their beliefs, whether positive or negative, to control and destroy others. Remember: the 9/11 terrorists were very religious. But the people who've used 9/11 as an excuse to demonize America were, in many instances, progressive atheists. One can use their belief or lack of same simply to sow dissension and hatred. To paraphrase one commenter, sometimes what is poured into a vessel can be very different when it's poured out.
Excellent points. And it is those type of beliefs that make me thankful that I live in a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian values and not anywhere else.
What is constructive about Christianity? I'd argue it's very destructive. People wasting hours and days and lives praying and proselytizing instead of learning about things that can actually change the world like science and charitable giving and basic human decency. Christianity in history has been one of the most repressive, destructive forces in the world has ever seen (second only to Islam, I'd say).
And yes I'm a republican. I wish people could separate conservatism from religiosity. They do have and should have nothing to do with each other.
The major religions are monotheistic (Christianity, Islam and Judaism being the largest). Monotheism means you believe in one god and reject all others as mythology.
As an atheist, I take it one further and say that they are all mythology.
We are not really so different, you and I.
I love the "invisible man" comment. Because it's always about treating us like we're too retarded to handle real life ourselves and that we "need" to believe in someone else, because it's gotta be about us.
The point, is that it's not about us at all. It's about the fact that we were made by God to serve Him and worship Him and live as He wants us to. The reason that so many of us don't is that He also gave us choice. Choice is the reason that you all can choose to believe what you want to, and live as you want to, otherwise we'd all just be robots. God doesn't force us to do one thing or another. We live, we grow, we change, and we die.
I love that athiesm's main target is always God, though. You never hear them ripping into Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any of the new-age "I worship sticks and stones because Gaia the earth-mother told me to".
If there was no God, then were do we get moral absolutes from? Why do we know the difference between right and wrong? Good and evil? We have to get that from somewhere right? A supreme good for us to measure things by? Otherwise we'd be in the wilderness living like animals and eating our young and we would have all died off long ago.
And if you disagree with me, you're probably a racist.
Christianity was the cradle of modern science, and many priests were scientists who made fundamental breakthroughs. Show me the other religion anywhere like that.
And I think you're missing my point that people who need what religion offers are going to get it somewhere. Christianity is best-case.
Moral absolutes? Does a child need to know about God and have faith to know the feeling they have when abused is hurt? Does a woman who is raped need to have faith to understand what she is feeling, that what is happening is wrong and not right? Does a person held at gunpoint during a bank robbery need to believe in a supreme good to know it's wrong that her life just flashed before her eyes for simply going to the bank? Does a drunk individual need to be one of faith to to know it's wrong that they are getting behind the wheel?
People deserve a little more credit in the power of themselves. No faith or understanding of how people think the world was created has anything to do with I feel when wronged.
You seem to be saying the logical path of the Atheist is to become a socialist. What I make of the socialist atheist is that they are not intellectually consistent. It's much truer to say that the natural progression for the Atheist is to become a nihilist, but to do so would be to deny pragmatism. I think we should try to be as pragmatic as possible without violating our core beliefs.
My core is built on individual freedom and anything that stands in its way I oppose……except when it may be more pragmatic to say build a fence on the border.
I don't want to be an absolutist, but I also don't want to be like these liberals who hide behind the vagueries of nuance to explain their every hypocritical position.
I hope that makes some sense.
he was in a comma.
"…I won’t push my [atheist] thoughts on you unless you ask…", he smirked on his 50,000 watt blowtorch of a blog…
You're letting your prejudice show: "Creating a religion to control the masses for the greater good…."
Are you equating Christianity with socialism, facism or Marxist? Or inferring that Jesus had the same intentions that Hitler, Stalin or Mao? To create a means of controlling the masses?
It would seem that the prime examples of collectivism were as strident in their condemnation of religion, especially Christianity, as you appear to be.
You're completely missing what I just said, and you're not looking at the big picture.
Moral absolutes are what tell us that hurting someone else is wrong. Without those, we'd just do whatever we wanted. Again, if there's no God, then why do we even think that things like rape and murder are wrong? Moral absolutes are not faith-based. They're a part of every person's soul when they're created, and they have to choice to obey those morals, or deny them. The fact that we have them, though, proves beyond a doubt that God exists, and that He rewards those who follow through with those morals and live as He wants.
Message too long, so here is my first comment.
Well, don't know where my original comment went so I'll try again.
I think it was an interesting article with a good point. However, I think Mr. Wilson was being unnecessarily flippant ("invisible guy who lives in the sky" and your grouping God, Budda and Allah with Penn and Teller, Batman and Robin isn't clever, it's just insulting) with his references to the various beliefs people have.
He also says that "kid from the most difficult circumstances imaginable hustling and struggling and pulling himself up by his own bootstraps". Nice picture however Russell seems to have come from a middle to upper middle class family. His father was a public school administrator his mother a New York City park administrator. He was attending the fairly prestigeous "New School" in New York when he quit to pursue his dreams. Hardly the most difficult of circumstances.
depends how you define god.
God the creater – exists. God that makes you win a lottery or pushes you out of the way of a falling limb — probably does not exist.
lol this is quite funny! Just to be clear, I enjoy Mr. Wilson's articles though he doesn't share my faith.
It's amusing & very sad to listen to atheists & other unbelievers make statements to try & support their position. You demand that God be removed from every facet of our lives; or you live in flagrant opposition to everything Holy- then say "there can't be a God, look at the condition we're in!". God made us with the ability to choose right from wrong, showed us the right way, & gave us a Savior to put us in right fellowship with him. You choose not to believe- fine, just be VERY sure that you are right, as there are only two choices. Remember, the best this world has to offer is the least Heaven has waiting for those that believe- and the worst this world has to offer is the best that hell has waiting for those that do not believe. "For I AM the way, the truth & the life. NO man comes to the Father, except by ME"
aharris – your words are wisdom. I agree with you 100% and then some. I especially like this one: "If God wanted obedient servants he'd have been content with the angels."
AMEN!
God helps those that help themselves is the old addage. And I think what the atheist author writes is very true – it's less God and more about us wanting to change, wanting to do better.
Frankly, it sounds like Simmons is like most rich liberals – good for me, but not for thee. He's using God as a bludgeon for political reasons and whenever someone does that, they lose all credibility and I don't care what side of the political aisle they are on.
Remember Falwell saying that 9/11 happened because of our tolerance for homosexuality? I'm glad George Bush did what he did – distance himself from that. That is a true President. He was a President for all of us, whether the lefties wanted to believe that or not.
Obama is NOT. He is only for his side, his cronies.
That is the big difference.
Part 2.
I'm para- phrasing Russell but he says that God will sentence the earth to self destruction if we continue to listen to the party of no (the GOP). Too many people that like and respect Russell will take this to heart. I've seen this guy on TV and his beliefs are really kind of out there however when challenged he has a real problem defending them (or making himself understood). I have a lot of respect for his building a business empire (although some hip-hop and gangster rap isn't the lifestyle I think I want the young to emulate) but his belief system is pretty well out there (little scary too)
The smug, insulting condescension seems irresistible to far too many people who preen themselves as calm, rational humanists. It immediately turns me off–a clear signal that whatever follows that phrase isn't worth listening to.
Athiests annoy me not so much because they don't believe in an intelligence higher than their own, but rather that they think THEY have all the answers to life, the universe, and everything. In the vast configuration of things, Athiests haven't any more of a clue about the universe than someone who worships sweats stains shaped like Elvis.
No God means no "God given" rights. Which means rights are given by the state. Which means the state can take them away.
If rights are "guaranteed by their Creator certain unalienable rights", no state can take them away.
I knew this would happen…
Good article, but:
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. Sometimes people need to believe in something more, I suppose, even if it’s not real."
Maybe people condemn you because of the tone of lines like that and not your atheistic belief, Mr. Wilson. I wouldn't dare condescend to anyone's beliefs like that even if I disagreed with it.
This whole article is full of truth and nothing but the truth.
Jesus or Allah or whichever figment of your imagination you worship must exist somewhere. What's wrong with assuming they live in the sky? Maybe they live in the center of the earth, or everywhere all at once. There's nothing flippant about it. They gotta be somewhere. Where do you think they are? In our hearts? Guess what, the heart is part of our anatomy. Human intellect and human emotion spring from the human brain. When the brain stops working, the intellect and the emotion go away forever – not to be with Jesus, not to live at Michael Jackson's house. THEY'RE GONE.
Yeah, God loves us. Oh yeah. Well, how loving is the God who doomed us to die in our twenties, as the author so astutely points out? We defied nature, the elements and your so-called God, just to be able to extend our life expectancy. We've done rather well at that, too, considering the 400 years the church put its heavy, merciless thumb on scientific advancement.
What's the point of changing the world, helping others, and basic human decency if we're all a bunch of accidental meat sticks floating around on a giant rock that accidentally materialized in space? Am I supposed to be nice to people because you, another meat stick, tells me to? Christianity, whether you believe in it or not, teaches that we're all God's children, and to be kind and generous to the less fortunate and you will be rewarded now and in the afterlife. Supertitious, maybe, but people need something to believe in. Athiesm doesn't have anything to offer but hopelessness and the void.
…And perhaps you're in a period?
As someone who worships an invisible man in the sky, I guess I shouldn't bother reading Wilson's brilliant posts, as they are obviously too brilliant for my puny Christian brain to comprehend.
Why would a yes/no, is/isn't belief based on objective reality be "deeply personal" I don't understand that unless the writer really does NOT wish to discuss the reasons for his belief. I believe the ocean exists and that the moon is NOT made of cheese, that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny do NOT exist. But I don't consider those beliefs "personal" I consider them to be objectively based outside myself and therefor "impersonal". If I suspected some personal aspect to the belief, I might question my objectivity (i.e. Santa really disappointed me one time and therefore I quit believing in him). I understand someone classifying their subjective beliefs as "personal" but not the objective conviction that Wilson purports to hold. Maybe his belief is not as objective as he asserts.
Christianity in history has been one of the most repressive, destructive forces in the world has ever seen
~~~
Then I as a Christian, claim that those men where not actual Christians and were playing in a charade… Just because a man or woman does something… anything (including wars, witch-hunts, etc,)… in the name of Christianity does not automatically make it so…. History tells us that people of power often used Christianity as a way to get the masses to agree with and support such destruction, because the people believed that such men (and some women) where God ordained and were the head of their churches as well as their governments…. It doesn't make what they did right or Christian….
And for the record I do seperate conservatism from my religion, because for some things I define conservatism as classical liberalism… and I know many people that also seperate the two and know the difference.
Here's the disconnect between genuine faith and the kind of socialism-hybrid religion that's at work here — my faith informs my politics. I believe in liberty in no small part because it's consistent with my faith in God. I believe that all men are created equal, that our rights are bestowed by God, and therefore must not be intruded upon by human government. On the other hand, what I see most often with liberals is that their politics informs their faith.
President Obama said something that I thought was very telling, that he converted to Christianity from being a non-believer in large part because he saw how useful the organization of the — in my view, heretical — church he went to was, in terms of motivating and driving social change. Which, if you think about it, means he converted because he saw how useful Rev. Wright's brand of victim theology was politically, especially in Chicago politics. I believe that's the same thing that we're seeing here with Russell Simmons.
You may not believe in God, but since you recognize that most people seem to need something to believe in, which would you rather — that they believe that they are helped and rewarded by a loving God (and therefore work hard to please Him) or that they believe they are helped and rewarded by a loving government (and therefore work hard to take your money)? I think you'll find that if people don't believe in the former, then for many, the latter will rush in to fill the vacuum. And that, I think, is anathema to both of us.
Saying that religion was created to explain the unexplainable and thus help control the masses is a simple fact. Nothing controversial about it.
The fact that people formed a religion based on one dude's philosophy is fine, but don't pretend its not collectivism.
The Aristocracy has always used religion to control people. That's no shocker. Its the freedom to choose whatever religion you want that threatens collectivism. Just as the yearning within different religions for certain freedoms ( whether it is freedom to not wear a burqa, or the freedom to eat meat ) is a threat to that collectivism and those who benefit from it.
I'm one of those wishy-washy passive go to church for weddings, Easter and Christmas believers. But I know one thing, God puts the responsibility for my life in my hands. I understand that. He's already forgiven me for doing things He said I shouldn't do, and He should know what's best. If I were an atheist, I'd say that there is no God, and responsibility for my own life is still in my own hands. And that's the point here. The big picture. Perhaps what is more dangerous than a non-believing statist who believes most of my responsibilities can be provided by the government is a religious statist who negates ANY personal responsibility in favor of the government AND God taking care of my failures and taking credit for my successes. And when it comes down to it, if conservative and believe in personal liberty, it doesn't matter if someone is a religious believer or not, we all know we can't have freedom without responsibility.
LOL — There is some great unintentional comedy going on in these comments.
I'll be back in an hour and give ya some of the intentional variety. Don't be late…!
Good, seeing as atheism make no sense to me either after studying theology and science.
See, it's mutual bewilderment.
Your first sentence essentially cancelled out whatever niceties you had to say afterward (and yes, I read the comment in whole).
I guess I'm just too stupid and irrational for oh-so-reasoned people like you.
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky"
When I was an atheist, I would have laughed along with you at the "invisible man lives in the sky." I also liked "God is an imaginary friend for adults."
But I'm a Christian now and look back at my life then and have to shake my head. I was blind, deaf, and dead of spirit.
Fortunately, I was a questioning soul. Are you a questioning soul, Michael Wilson? Are you willing to challenge the notions in your head? I will pray that you are. Would you like to meet for coffee or meet me at my church in Simi Valley for a great Sunday service? You'll be among many former atheists (me included) How about it? I'm serious.
THIS ATHEIST SOMETIMES HATES ATHEISM…!! BREAKING NEWS – BREAKING NEWS
Example: A family member dies, and his grieving child comes to me for comfort.
I wish, oh how I wish I could tell that child that, one day, he will have a miraculous reunion with the loved one he just lost. Just that one application would make all the other crazy stuff about religion more or less acceptable.
I envy the true believers for that aspect of religion, the part where you get to cheat death. Yet, I have chosen the only path that makes any sense whatever, to me, that of relying on mankind's best efforts, while eschewing wish-thinking and fantasy. (I also eschew tobacco.)
Good point. Christianity has never been a destructive force. The Christian Church, on the other hand, often has, and usually when it is led by demagogues who don't follow the tenets of Christianity but rather pervert them for their own agenda. ex. Jeremiah Wright.
All right, now I can have a nice discourse with you.
A lot of atheists (you and pundit SE Cupp included) seem to envy those of faith, and it seems to be very genuine when they say it but they just can't go back because their reasoning won't let them and religion left the station a long time ago.
See, I'm dubious of the whole "miraculous reunion" because I don't picture Heaven or an afterlife like that. Hell, I'm not even sure there is an afterlife, but I don't need the thought of one to be religious or to have a belief in God.
Take care.
this is a difficult thing to comment on.
I have seen things that can not be explained in any way but through religion. And yet I'm a sceptic, I do not have a perfect knowledge.
Faith requires of me things I'd rather not do, it is easier not to. I do them because I belive God wants me to and becuse it will help me become a better person than I might otherwise be.
Religion and more specifically Christianity makes sense to me. My denomination makes the most sense to me of all the Christian sects.
I do not believe God wants all people to suffer equally. He seems to want those of us who can to help those who need it. A wealthy person has a much greater ability to do this than a poor person.
It strikes me as very bizarre that a self made man won't want to allow others to do the same.
your statement of "Allah hasn’t ever helped a single young criminals turn his life around, but rather it was the desire within those young men to aspire to more, to clean up and work hard" has some truth. it seems that God doesn't force people to change so much as helps those who want to.
I don't condemn Michael for believing there is no God. It is hard to contain my feelings of superiority, but I don't condemn him.
Your assertion that "religion was created to explain the unexplainable" is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. That is, "Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption." Again, you're showing your prejudice, your bias.
The earliest records of ancient civilization includes religion. Beyond that, any secular thoughts on its origin is speculation.
i'm a Christian and have no problem with atheists (and yes, i mean that. almost all my friends are at least apathetic towards religion), but it's the smugness and contempt that you cited in this article that i can't stand.
Okay, Reverend Rubbet here…
Please open your Holy Books to II Confabulations, verses 9 and 10, and follow along as I read from the sacred text of antiquity:
"And he toiled not in the vineyard; nor labored he in the fields. And though he knew not his ass from a HOLE IN THE EARTH, yea, verily; And though he couldst not find his own ASS WITH BOTH HANDS, praise whatever, he prospered might-eh-lehhhhhhhh, for he could talk that shite-tuhhhhhhh."
Amen.
"God actually wants us all dead, given that until we invented science and started figuring out how to extend our lives, we died in our twenties."
Actually, it was a high infant mortality rate that brought the average lifespan down. In the stone ages, for instance, the average lifespan for an adult who lived past the age of 15 was 39 to 54 years.
Athiest or Christian, we all make the journey of life. Imagine we are making this journey down a hall and as we approach the end of the hall there are two doors, "Eternal Death" and "Eternal Life". There is absolutely no way to determine what is behind either of the two doors but we must pick and enter one of them. Why would any sensible person choose "Eternal Death"?
Even for the athiest who absolutely knows "Eternal Death" is actually behind both doors, would there not be the slightest glimmer of the possibility that he might be wrong? Could he have read the data wrong? Has he never made a mistake or an error in judgement?
If it were your house, would you allow someone to enter who loudly defiles you and your house?
And what faith do you imagine is required to be an atheist? You can yammer until your jaws get sore, and it won't change the fact that belief requires faith and nonbelief doesn't. What a bill of goods you're trying to sell. It's so much like Obama saying, "Oh, we're poor? Well, I know how to fix that. Here, lemme spend a trillion or two or ten, that'll straighten us right out."
Atheism requires no faith. NONE. That is the beauty of it: There are no extraneous or supernatural beings to explain, no claiming of special knowledge about our origins. We can say we don't know and remain intellectually honest and true to ourselves.
Life isn't the greatest thing. It's the only thing. If you think otherwise, prove it. I can be convinced, but not by what I've seen so far. This is weak.
I do have anger, hatred and disdain, but not for Christian citizens.
For religion, I have hatred. It is patently false, so obviously wrong a drunken child could see through it.
For governmental efforts to drag religion into my life, I have anger. For liars who claim that one or another atheist begged for God's help on his deathbed, I have anger.
For preachers, I have disdain.
America's thoughts will be truly free only when the last televangelist is strangled with the intestines of the last country singer. (Apologies to Diderot)
I see intelligence higher than my own every day. The author of this article, in my opinion, displays intelligence greater than mine.
You won't find me currying favor with any supernatural beings. ("Hey, BillyBob, ain't it great? Two supernatural beings are fightin' over mah soul." — "Yeah, JimmyJoe, it shore do beat all, don't it?")
To hell with that. And I don't see the evidence for atheists thinking they have all the answers. The only thing I'm sure of is that the Koran, the Torah and the Holy Bible are giant scams.
"There is none so blind, as he who will not see."
We hardly needed the Bible to warn us of cult personalities. Common sense warns me of that same thing.
For me, it doesn't matter how many people religion has killed.
If I accepted a sacred text and a God to go along with it, and they both told me mass deaths were a good thing, I would accept that as true.
What matters to me is religion's falsity.
If you want to limit yourself to those two choices, have at it.
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky. "
But you will besmirch those who have a more mature idea of metaphysics and religion than 5th grade sunday school lessons. That's is your perogative I suppose; in my opinion it's not an adult approach to present your belief nor is it a proper way to frame a discussion.
To each their own, and if your belief that everything in the Universe is random chance and we are all insiginifigant blips on the universal radar.. whatever gets you through the day. Seems real depressing to me.
At least our political ideology has a common foothold, though I'm curious how you feel about the Founders placing faith in "divine providence" and our "Creator" as the source of our inalienable rights.
Actually I am limiting myself to one. Got a better one?
MW – as another conservative atheist, I've always found it best to avoid talking down to believers, and the 'man in the sky' thing just as insulting to them as the 'teabagger' term is to tea party activists – moreso, actually, and understandably so. While I agree with most of the piece, trying to convince a believer on this topic is futile and counterproductive, and tends to lead to the lulz-worthy comments said piece has thus-far received. The hardest thing for any atheist to grasp – especially a conservative one – is that if one talks/writes about believers, one immediately risks sounding like a zookeeper talking about animals. For obvious reasons, this is insulting to the believer and doesn't help the smear against atheism in conservatism a whit.
The best atheist-believer interaction I've seen came from Htichens debating Dr. Timothy Jackson in a Tennessee church – funny, respecful, good-natured, and thought-provoking.
Nice to know a fellow Republican Atheist. Take care
Do you really think people fall for that former Atheist routine. Please get a life.
Yes, obviously.
Nice to see all you guys telling each other how wonderful you are. Onecent says " which was Christ's permission to form secular societies" but he's not christian , WOW. I see you guys and think you all have to believe in angels and I think– angels — really angels. Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists all had angels as major players in the formation of their religion. When you believe in angels, it's really hard to accept that you have a clue about anything. I really mean you no harm– you make it so hard not to think in those terms.
That's really the only problem with this article but I usually cut young people a little more slack.
One can see God in the consciousness of a chicken but will never 'see' if they think they're supposed to be looking for a man in the sky.
Liberation Theology has morphed into Obamunism.
"Atheism requires no faith. NONE. That is the beauty of it: There are no extraneous or supernatural beings to explain, no claiming of special knowledge about our origins."
How can you be certain there are no supernatural beings, when the wealth of your knowledge is confined to a tiny spec floating in the vast unlimited cosmos? You can't be certain that there isn't a God any more than a believer can be certain there is one. So you basically take a leap of faith. That makes atheists bigger fools than the Christians they like to mock and ridicule.
At least Christians admit their beliefs are based on faith rather than science. Atheists falsely claim to have science behind them, but any scientist will tell you that lack of proof in the existence of something is not "proof" that it doesn't exist.
"And I don't see the evidence for atheists thinking they have all the answers."
Remember that the next time you tell one of those superstitious Christians that there's no afterlife, when we die we rot and that's it.
When people say you have to have faith to be an atheist, they mean you have to believe that the universe was never created, it just always was. That life has no deeper meaning, that there is nothing after you die, that all religions are scams or lies, that all believers have been duped. You have to believe all that in order to be an atheist and that takes faith. If you were being honest, you would be agnostic and leave these debates to people with faith.
Dear site admin:
It's not worth it to me to post here, and have to wait for my comments to appear. I haven't done anything wrong. Therefore, I can't accept this unwarranted treatment. Have a nice life.
Yes, we've seen how well things worked out for free expression when Hilter and Stalin ruthlessly marginalized public religious faith in Germany and Russia, respectively.
Any serious conservative student of history realizes that purely atheist countries either become oppressive conquerors (e.g., Soviet Union) or the conquered (e.g., Netherlands becoming a mini Iran). Hence, despite the complaints, militant American atheists aren't making a mass exodus to Europe anytime soon.
In college, I was an atheist. In retrospect, being an atheist was a dark, fearful, selfish, mean-spirited existence I wouldn't wish on an enemy. Naturally, I resented anyone who pointed out how miserable I was or was more joyful because of their faith in Christ. In that sense, I had much in common with the Statists running rampant in society today.
So, you dismissing nolotrippen's post is the same sad front I used before being reconciled with Christ. Your behavior is worthy of my pity instead any snarky comeback.
I'll pray for you.
"We've done rather well at that, too, considering the 400 years the church put its heavy, merciless thumb on scientific advancement."
Good thing some athiests are good at math and science. I have yet to meet one who is any good at history.
Comma or coma, neither make sense. Jesus was "missing" from the tomb. Not found in a coma.
I have friends who are atheist and frequently hear the "invisible man in the sky" comments along with other atheist favorites.
When I was five-years-old, I believed in a God who I could understand through coloring books and simple concepts. As an adult, I believe in a God who I understand through Christian Apologetics and the philosophy of Aquanis, Moreland, and CS Lewis, etc.
Believe whatever you want, but if you want to be condescending, at least throw stones at adult concepts rather than children's lessons.
Um…okaaaaay. I havent once got on here and dissed the position of atheists and their beliefs, but I see you spewing this kind of drivel on practically every post in this thread…why?! What are you trying to achieve? Do you have a purpose? My purpose was to come on here and at least show the author of the article that I stood with him in my disgust over the cult of Obama. I could not care any less if you dont like the fact that I believe in angels or God or transubstantiation. As I mentioned in another post, one that I wrote to the author himself: belief is PERSONAL. You cant debate it. If thats what youre trying to do, is stir up a "debate" you're doing a piss-poor job of it hun. Go debate among your fellow atheists. Its immaterial to me what you say about my faith. The only ones who will understand what I am trying say about my faith are those who share…and really that's the only audience worth talking to. Its up to you to either join in or stay away. If you were truly atheist, you wouldnt care much about what I believe either. But its obvious you DO care and youre looking to proselytize. Nice try, but I know of better theology…
BESIDES, you nitwit, where the blooming blazes do you get that Im talking about angels, anyway?! WTF?! Do you even READ?!
I dont think youre atheist. I think youre HIGH. Go get detoxed before attempting to join this conversation again.
OK… go ahead.
"Believers say they accept their tenets on faith, and that science is either incomplete or wrong."
Ironic that fundamentalists and atheists read the Bible exactly the same way. Outside of the fundamentalist community, Christians have traditionally seen the Bible more like this:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." — Augustine of Hippo, "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (c. 408 A.D.)
Most people would rather be a knave than a fool. To tell someone he's going to hell is to call him a knave. To belittle someone's "need for an imaginary friend" which causes him to "choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky" is to call him a fool. The difference matters. The latter is far more insulting.
You cannot have it both ways, my friend. You can't say that religion is "patently false, so obviously wrong a drunken child could see through it." and then you say you respect me as a Christian citizen. Either I am what you say I am, a drunken, idiot child who believes in a "man in the sky" or someone you can respectfully disagree with. Not both.
And why bring country singers into it? Rather cheap shot, imo.
Also, you keep evading my point about modern science coming about in Christianity dominated societies/cultures. Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss that.
Let me try to explain to you why people like me say atheists have faith and belief. You cannot by the power who possess by being a mortal human being, know all that has happened since the beginning of time, all that is happening now, nor all that will happen in the future. Thus, you cannot prove that god does not exist. Ergo, your belief that there is no god is not based on "proof"(evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth, dictionary.com).
By its very nature, the act of deciding if there is or is not a god is based on faith and belief. For if such beings exist, they would have to exist to come extent outside of this universe/creation, in order to operate outside the known laws of this universe. Science domain is answering questions to of what goes on in this universe and cannot go to what may exist outside of it.
Your life experiences have led you to believe that there is no god. When you decided that, you started living by faith. That is what I, and those others who have said it, mean when they say that atheists have faith/belief. All humans live by faith and belief, to a certain degree. That includes atheists.
Hope that clears some things up.
RELIGION has bastardized Christianity… and probably all other monotheistic belief systems by making it a basic money grab, other than possibly Budhism. When people go to church for networking, and financial gain; churches require tithing, and use it as their social power gathering, it's time to take a step back.
As far as Simmons, Pelosi, and Soros who are proclaimed self-made people, it is disturbing that they want to create a system where no one can aspire to do what they did through education and hard work. I think it is a strategy to create a paternalistic society with an old-money oligarchy, where they and their families rule and everone else is a fuedal subject.
In addition, most of the world hates the US because many of their best and brightest say "screw it, I'm going to the US to get mine." This is b/c the corruption in Asia and the over taxation in Europe cripple the entrepreneurial spirit. Obamma's surrendering of our autonomy at the G20 shows that he puts globalism ahead of the American dream. Like Jefferson said, "The government powerful enough to give you everything is also powerful enough to take it away."
I empathize with the protestations of reducing your belief to an "invisible man in the sky" only if that isn't what you personally believe, however all three Abrahamic gods are given male personas in the scriptures and in the classical art, and looking up to the sky when praying is pretty much the impression believers have created. And well, as far as the invisible part…yeah.
Atheism requires one statement of faith and you've repeatedly made since you've shown up here.
Agnoticism is the view that doesn't require faith, just some uncertainty and the honesty to admit that one does not know the True Secrets of Life, the Universe, EVERYTHING!
I guess rational thought is just too much, too soon, for too many.
Hint: haughty pronouncements about how you being correct and those who have religious beliefs are "so obviously wrong a drunken child could see through it" is not rational thought.
Going to call for a Jihad or Crusade to "save" the believers?
Perhaps I should start gathering forces for an Agnostic Jihad, except I can't think of an appropriate battlecry. "You have no idea what you're talking about" just isn't cutting it.
Or maybe the Agnostic Inquisition? No one would expect it. Our main weapons would be surprise, surprise and uncertainty…. oh bother.
Yes, yes… people have beliefs you don't like. Can't have that. Have to suppress them… for their own good, of course.
Maybe if we're lucky you'll end up creating something like the Reavers. /sarcasm.
No, he's stuck in his own limited choices.
"I don’t really begrudge those who choose to believe that an invisible man lives in the sky"
As others have pointed out, saying you don't begrudge someone and then slapping them in the face and calling their faith as believing "an invisible man lives in the sky" sounds rather contradictory.
Simply say you don't believe in any particular faith, others are free to do so and leave it at that.
Sheesh.
Shh… he thinks he's soooo mighty, knocking down all those strawmen. Let him have his delusion for awhile and then crush him.
People like Mr. Wilson amuse me in their hypocrisy. Mr. Wilson starts out by saying flat out that there is no God. In making that statement, Mr. Wilson is making a leap of faith no more supported by facts then the statements of the most ardent theist. I've seen it time and again from atheists, this curious blind spot and inability to recognize that they are engaging in the exact behavior that they are condemning. If what Mr. Wilson is striving for is intellectual honesty, which is what most atheists claim to be doing, the fact is that "agnostic" is the only intellectual honest belief out there.
Hmm, let's see did you forget those child molesting priests? How sweet, believing in fairy tales and angels— miracles is good for people. How can believing is something that cannot be proven a good thing? Wouldn't that lead to a bunch of folks following people like Hitler, etc. Sorry, people are never better off believing in things that cannot be proven. I'd rather be miserable knowing the truth than a happy fool. Religious people are getting IT alright — the shaft from rich preachers and snake oil peddlers. See my utube video newstogod channel Rich pastor life style — take care
Atheism doesn't have anything to offer but hopelessness and the void.
Yah, but you know, making this the only life meaningful has been and is great fun. Much better use of time and money not going to church and all that nonsense. When I realized I was an Atheist I had this wonderful feeling of freedom and release — truly amazing. I've met many really nice Atheists caring terrific people. I think smarter I some ways — at least they are real — no, paranoia I find christians very worried about those people that don't share their belief. I was taught as a kid not to date someone or go to another church from a different religion. Seems pretty shallow to me.
Christianity has never been a destructive force
Oh, sure ROFL How long have you been blind?
How about churches that don't believe in god. Lots of generic churches out there — I think it's just a matter of time. Come on in folks and just feellgood.
If the sheet fits
how anyone came to their religious decisions.
Largely from parents upbringing, etc. We atheists like to point out that most christians would be muslims had they been born in a muslim country. That's when they get into one of those my gods better than your god arguments. Or I like to say, my nonsense is better than your nonsense.
I am and know many Atheists— never have heard hate regarding people of faith. Fools maybe- stupid maybe- no hate.
Interesting stuff you guys. I am an Atheist and Republican and I can tell there a lot more of us than you think. I pretty much agree with all the usual stuff except the religion connection. I am definitely not a socialist. We must have made a wrong turn:)
Hmm, let's see– don't know your politics – but don't you look at the other side and think how can they believe this or that? As a Atheist looking at believers we think the same things. Would it be better if I said, how can you believe all this truly astonishing, incredibly amazing , stupendous, stuff without evidence. And, I have good evidence that you came from a monkey. Seriously, once you become an Atheist and look at all religion it become so amazingly clear that religion is just wrong. Also, I don't hear Atheists making labels that you seem to feel exist. I think these likely come from religious themselves while defending their beliefs.
See my utube video newstogod channel Kennedy's Death and the Bible
Hmm, Sorry, I've read many of comments re: it's ok religion for the most part is not a bad thing. I feel sad truth is better than happy fairy tales. We really don't know what things would be like if Atheists were the majority by choice. Most historical Nazis, communists were suppressed into their atheism. The next time that won't be the case.
Hmmm
You do begrudge — then you go on to explain why you do, hmmm.
Apologetics now there's a word
There is no evidence of god — that's not a leap of faith — just the truth. Why believe in something that has no evidence. Simple.
Well, I can't agree that I'd prefer people to be sad. And, as Pontius Pilate famously asked, "What is truth?" Then he washed his hands and sent off his correspondent to die horribly. Was Jesus better off for having been put into the hands of a consummate realist? I wonder. I found it telling that you mentioned nazis and communists, who were also living a lie — indeed, living out a happy fairy tale of utopia which ended for many millions in gulags and gas chambers. What is truth, indeed. Of course, THIS time it will be done better. But then, that's what the nazis and communists said also.
Here's another truth: delusion is not necessarily evil. In fact, delusion might be considered a survival mechanism. Example: people who are pessimists tend to be more realistic about their lives, but people who are optimistic tend to live longer. This thousand year reich of atheism you propose might be a more starkly realistic world, but I daresay life in that world would be sad and short. And I find it incredibly hubristic to think that only you are right about how other people should live their lives. Some might even call that "playing god."
I think one aspect of realism is accepting things AS THEY ARE, including people. People aren't always completely rational, nor reasonable, nor coldly intellectual, oftentimes simply so that they might protect their lives from the ravages of brutal honesty you seem to propose. Far be it from me to fault people for wanting to live longer and more happily. And I think I prefer people as they are: not perfect, yet loveable precisely because of their imperfections. Perfectly honest yet miserable "realists" seem like pretty poor company.
Granted. By the same token, there is no evidence that there is no God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now, if you want to take the predictable next step, you can reduce the argument to the absurd and point out that there is no evidence that ghosts, faeries or, I dunno, the Loch Ness monster don't exist either. And you'd be right. The difference between those things and God is that they, if they did exist, exist within the universe and thus are subject to the laws of the universe. God, by definition, exists outside of the universe and so s/he/it is not. Therefore, ANY definitive statement about the existence or nature of God, for or against, is a pure leap of faith. Q.E.D.
I think you pretty much nailed it there…
Sometimes, comments just take a while to appear for various reasons. The fact that you assume it's some sort of vindictiveness towards you on the part of the admins says a lot about you, and not much of it is very good.
He only wants voluntary worship and love from Man.
I find it interesting that you know what god wants. Many Christians tell me they know how god thinks. It's statements like that, that help me know Atheism is the correct choice.
Funny stuff
I was raised catholic also, luckily I saw the error of my parents influence and became an Atheist. In my large family I am the only one that is no longer catholic. They are catholic because of my parents– at 2 weeks baptized us — no choice–bang that's it. Obviously, you took another route. We can still say 99% of religious people are the same faith as the parents and that is has a lot to do with where you are born as well. Think of it this way. If you were born a Muslim you may not have had the opportunity to take theology unless it was Muslim based. You might be an Iman in a mosque. You have had the luxury of thought and freedom to act. Obviously, I disagree with you conclusion.
I don't think these religious missions do anything but cause problems– they can't generate enough money to make an impact on anything but the church goers billfold. They should stay home and give free pot lucks.
World of the future will have a majority of atheists because it makes the most sense and because the internet dilutes church doctrine. You would never have you thinking challenged without the internet. You would go your merry way thinking you were always right. Nothing to challenge you ideas. Today teen believers are seeing and hearing thinking they never would have been exposed to before. There will not be the need to make laws about what to believe as they did 50 years ago. People will be in agreement and let the minority who believe in gods alone. You better hope that's what happens otherwise, the world will not be worth living in. The problem with religion is one of them thinks they have to win over the other. take care
Can I get this reward in cash? I am always amazed that someone can say they know what the thing that created the entire humongous, gigantic, universe and maybe a billion others wants or thinks or lists the good and bad things we do. Mental telepathy–what? Do you Christians ever think about what you are saying? You can't be sure of what you next door neighbor thinks.
Are you sure you are not bothered by how sure we Atheists are? Soon there will be a majority of Atheists because it is the most logical. People that believe in gods will be tolerated and ignored. Finally peace in the world.
See my video utube newtogod channel Be careful what you wish for
"If you're intellectually honest, you recognize there are powerful arguments for the existence of God that rational people are justified in accepting." That's all I said. If you translate that as, in your words, "that if I was intellectually honest I would agree with your point of view," then conversation is probably going to be impossible with you. Don't worry; I'll explain: Recognition that there are powerful arguments for a position that rational men are justified to accept is not tantamount to agreeing with those positions. Example: I think it is rationally justifiable for rational men to accept that God does not exist, i.e., there are powerful arguments in favor of atheism that rational people can hold (for instance, Quentin Smith, Bertrand Russell, and others like them). Justification is not the same as accuracy. One may be justified in holding a belief that is wrong, since there can be good reasons and arguments for a wrong position. My point ONLY was that you should recognize there are arguments for theism which rational men are justified in accepting. Obviously, that does not mean you must agree with them. Basically, if you can't acknowledge that men like Aquinas, Locke, Plato, Kant, etc., were rational men who had justifiable arguments for God's existence, then you're intellectually dishonest. It would mean you're on the level of Hitchens or Dawkins. Maybe you should try taking MY words as they're stated and stop imputing malice on me.
As for the rest, I'm not trying to be mean, but it looks like empty verbiage and baseless assertions. I'm not going to attempt to sort through it and see if there is an argument (clear, linear, one point logically flowing from the other) lurking in there. All I noticed were factually incorrect statements, misunderstandings of my words, the philosophy of others, and philosophy in a broad sense.
Apologia's point stands. I'll even break it down better. Alvin Plantinga wrote a book entitled _God and Other Minds_, the thesis of which is that God's existence is indeed not provable in any indubitable, necessarily compelling sense. But then neither is the existence of other minds around you. You will most likely not appreciate the point, since other minds are obvious (who else would you be talking to?). Yet in epistemology, metaphysics, the "Problem of Other Minds" remains. No one can formally demonstrate in a necessarily compelling way that solipsism is not true. Everyone else could just be "philosophical zombies" that BEHAVE as men, but truly have nothing going on internally, no subjective minds. You can't prove that because you can't have access to internal states of others; all you can do is try to infer internal subjectivity from behavior, and the gap between internal and externam will remain. Is it rational to believe other minds exist? Yes. In fact, it's irrational not to. Oh no! We have to accept a belief we cannot prove! How terrible! Rational people understand faith comes BEFORE reason. Without faith, reason is nothing, since you must initially have faith IN reason's validity to begin with, unless you find a way to prove the validity of reason with reason itself, which is circular. (No, for God's sake, you cannot do it with the Almighty Scientific Method either — you gotta have faith in that, too. And don't misunderstand me; I use faith in the literal, broad sense, not the theological one).
Plantinga's conclusion, after many pages of arguing? Belief in God and belief in other minds rest on principally equivalent grounds. If you reject God due to lack of proof, then don't act so epistemologic cally "hard to get" because you can't prove beyond a doubt that you're not in a Matrix-like world either. Please don't accuse me of philosophical mumbo-jumbo either, because I KNOW I don't live in a Matrix or solipsistic world — I know it with faith and reason together. Yes, faith is necessary for most knowledge.
Don't say I'm playing a rhetorical trick to bait you; that's itself a rhetorical trick (ad hominem). Here is Apologia's point in logical form:
1. You stated in your first post: "I lack the capacity to have faith in some idea that cannot be proved."
2. (Implicit) You cannot prove any of the other statements you made, or any in this string of assertions you've made.
3. You believe them, presumably.
4. Thus you have faith in them to a degree, since you can't prove them.
5. What the hell gives?
If you say one more time, or appeal to one more time, the idea that scientific method, or "science" or scientifically provable, facts are the only worth holding, as if scientific method is the standard for knowledge, then we are done here and I'll leave you and your faith alone. Same with induction. I don't care what Mill has said about induction. He wouldn't have even been studied anymore if it hadn't been for his dreadful utilitarianism. I accept induction and science as valid, just not as the foundations or the standards for knowledge.
I'll have you know that Aristotle and Aquinas based their arguments for God on empirical grounds for their starting premise. But you won't accept that, I'm sure, since you claim to have read Aquinas (yet then you attribute an ontological argument to him, which is just wrong).
One thing I don't, unfortunately, have faith in, is your ability to comprehend what I've said ,or at least to formulate a coherent, factually correct response to it. I swear I'm not trying to be mean, or bait you, but I won't waste time arguing if you've proved that you're just not going to get it. It's frustrating, and I'm sick at the moment.
Also notice I haven't even told you my religious beliefs yet. Your epistemological standards are all that are under discussion. Admit you have some faith in the unprovable, or abandon into self-defeating, impracticable radical skepticism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.