Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Atheists: Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists (EuroPress Alert)
Der Spiegel Online ^ | October 26, 2006 | Jörg Blech

Posted on 10/28/2006 8:46:36 PM PDT by Jacob Kell

In the United States, atheists are becoming an ostracized minority. But now evolutionary biologists are trying to turn the tables: According to their argument, religion is the source of evil. Morals and selflessness are not God-given - they are the result of evolution.

When Richard Dawkins, a zoologist at Oxford University, steps up to the altar he seems visibly pleased to see the pews in the church fully occupied. In the best Queen's English, he reads from his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheism; biologist; christophobia; evolution; misotheism; religion; richarddawkins; theocracy; theophobia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 last
To: WildHorseCrash; hosepipe

"No, I understand that you believe that. But the larger world does not agree with that understanding."


IF that is true, then the larger world doesn't "get" it.


"Or, at least, they don't think that is the only, exclusive understanding."


There are some who have a way of making something so simple much more difficult than it need be.


"It's an attack on those people who both 1) claim to be Christian and 2) believe that God gave nature and the world to us to do whatever we want with it. It is an attack (to the extent it even IS an attack) on no one else but those people."


They may claim to be Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are Christian.
I believe that was hosepipe's point when he said, "Not all christians are christians..... some are merely actors."


"Certainly not all Christians."


Thank you for clarifying...


181 posted on 10/29/2006 3:35:45 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
IF that is true, then the larger world doesn't "get" it.

Well, the world is just coming up with a definition, not some theological purity test.

They may claim to be Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are Christian.

Since there is no objective, universally accepted definition of "Christian," then your opinion as to what makes one a Christian is not superior than anyone else's. My view is that if someone claims it, that's fine with me if it is at all reasonable. It doesn't mean anything about their beliefs or anyone else's, it just tells me what label to apply.

182 posted on 10/29/2006 3:43:33 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
The difference is that Communism was (is) false. Evolution is true.

The Communist thought (and some still do) that Communism was a truth. They had plenty of scientific theories and human observations to support their truth. Millions of people were killed for this mistaken belief. Communist also saw/see religion as evil. Anyone who sees religion as inherently evil, fails to grasp the nature of man or the nature of evolution. For example, we fought for thousands of years before Christ or Mohammad even appeared. Yet the world is full of fools who claim that all our wars were started because of religion.

183 posted on 10/29/2006 3:47:03 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
The Communist thought (and some still do) that Communism was a truth. They had plenty of scientific theories and human observations to support their truth.

There weren't literally millions of data points supporting communism. There are millions of such data points supporting the Theory of Evolution.

Anyone who sees religion as inherently evil, fails to grasp the nature of man or the nature of evolution.

One can believe religion is evil and still understand human nature. There is nothing that says human nature cannot be evil. (Oh, and the "or the nature of evolution" is a total non-sequitur.)

For example, we fought for thousands of years before Christ or Mohammad even appeared. Yet the world is full of fools who claim that all our wars were started because of religion.

Not all of them. But it also foolish to argue that religion is some kind of unmitigated good, especially given the fact that countless millions have suffered and died on account of it and continue to do so to this day.

184 posted on 10/29/2006 3:56:42 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Gotta read that, will add it to my list of books I need to acquire.


185 posted on 10/29/2006 4:29:36 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
Hitler was also an artist. Do we blame all artist with being genocidal mass murderers ? No we don't. All of Germany was catholic at one point in time. Called itself the Holy Roman Empire. Religions have come and gone and come again in Europe. Just as artistic styles have come and gone and come again. We should not confuse the symptom with the underlying problem, the nature of man and the nature of evolution. BTW - Hitler was an Austrian who thought that Austria and Vienna were part of true Germany. He first visible expression of racism was against the Slavic peoples living in Vienna (Hitler and Stalin by Bullock). Hitler was apparently unaware that the King of Poland had saved Vienna from the Muslim Turks 200 years beforehand.
186 posted on 10/29/2006 4:32:18 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Ghengis Khan's position in history is nearly unique.

And he died making love to the blond German wife he took. Popped a blood vessel in his brain supposedly. Now that must have been some woman.

187 posted on 10/29/2006 4:36:33 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
One can believe religion is evil and still understand human nature. There is nothing that says human nature cannot be evil. (Oh, and the "or the nature of evolution" is a total non-sequitur.)

There is the underlying problem and why the thread was started. You believe that 'religion is evil'. Do you think the Dali Lama is evil ? Do you think Mother Terresa was evil ? Are the numerous religious societies in the Southwestern US who donate their time and money to travel to Mexico to build homes for the poor, evil ? What the heck is evil about your typical Sunday church service ?

Not all of them. But it also foolish to argue that religion is some kind of unmitigated good, especially given the fact that countless millions have suffered and died on account of it and continue to do so to this day.

That is due to the nature of man, not due to the nature of religion. Atheists can kill just as easy as the Pagan Genghis Khan killed.

188 posted on 10/29/2006 4:56:48 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: VOA
My inexpert understanding is that the field of sociobiology is trying to explain the general human concept of "Moral Law" in terms of evolution and biology.

Thank you. That makes my case for me - Dawkins, et. al., have a definition of how a species should behave for its benefit, but no definition of why *I* should follow that behavior.

What benefits a species does not necessarily do me any good; e.g., if I see a lion attacking my children, it's to the benefit of my species if I die to save them, but I personally get the short end of the stick. Why not say "too bad," and go make some more kids? For that matter, why have kids at all - they use up resources I could spend on myself. No animal ever thought "I'd better do X for the good of my species" - it was following its instinctive urges, which is another way to say "I do whatever pops into my head." If what pops into my head is to have a cold one and watch the show, should that mean "Tough luck, Junior?"

So far as I can tell, Dawkins and his fellows are saying one of two things:

1) "Instinct is good, and should be followed." In that case, any urge I may have - to steal, murder rape, you name it - is good, and should be followed. It must be there for a reason, or I wouldn't have it.

2) "Survival of the species and/or my genes is good." In that case, the behavior Dawkins finds abhorant - homophobia, racism, infantcide, genocide, etc - are quite acceptable if they allow my genes to be propagated. E.g., why not wipe out the tribe/city/nation in the next valley? More land for me and my family!

Without endorsing evolution or creationism, Dawkins' argument seems logically contradictory.

189 posted on 10/29/2006 5:48:25 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (Natalie Maines fears me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Bingo. Please also see my post #189.


190 posted on 10/29/2006 5:51:44 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (Natalie Maines fears me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
Dawkins is safe and prosperous because he is surrounded by "cretins" who don't act on their instinctive urges.

He wouldn't survive a week in a truly Darwinian society.

He is the weakest link.

191 posted on 10/29/2006 6:06:52 PM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
He wouldn't survive a week in a truly Darwinian society.

I once worked with an artist who was an 'Earth Firster'. He was arguing with me about how I liked to take these long range fishing trips back then. He actually made some comments about how it would be great to get back to nature. Get back to evolution. He obviously had never seen evolution up close and personal. I have while on the back of a long range fishing boat. We were chumming live mackerel for bait to bring a school of large yellow-fin tuna up to the boat. There simply is no more of an incredible site or actually no more of an horrific site then seeing Tuna over 100 lbs churning up on some running for their life's mackerel. Believe me, we do not want to go back there. To nature and evolution that is.

192 posted on 10/29/2006 6:20:07 PM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!


193 posted on 10/29/2006 8:06:59 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; Jacob Kell

Thank you so much for the ping! LOL


194 posted on 10/30/2006 2:50:43 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
There is the underlying problem and why the thread was started. You believe that 'religion is evil'.

No, I don't. I believe that religion is irrational and that religion has been used for evil ends, and that some religious beliefs and dogmas are evil, but I don't believe that religion itself, universally, is evil.

That is due to the nature of man, not due to the nature of religion. Atheists can kill just as easy as the Pagan Genghis Khan killed.

No doubt atheists can kill. But atheists don't kill because their atheism tells them to. When some religious people kill, on the other hand, they do so because they believe that their god or their religion requires them to. That is the difference. And that religion-inspired killing and torture is evil.

195 posted on 10/30/2006 5:28:47 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Hitler was also an artist. Do we blame all artist with being genocidal mass murderers ? No we don't.

And I don't blame all Catholics or all Christians for Hitler. Nor do artists deny the fact that Hitler was an artist because they dislike what he did.

196 posted on 10/30/2006 5:28:53 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: TET1968
This month's cover issue of Wired, "THE NEW ATHEISM" Screams: "No Heaven, No Hell, Just Science" Inside the CRUSADE against religion.

I have a theory about atheists. They think they are too smart to believe in God.

Excellent theory, I'd say you have a better case for it than Darwin does for his.

The thing about atheist scientists is, why do they feel their views represent a beneficial direction in the evolution of the species? Perhaps they should consider that belief in God is a natural step in evolution of homo sapiens, and in fact, belief or at least awareness of God is what separates us from other species. It could be the scientists themselves are guilty of holding us back from our evolutionary destiny! Consider the dilemma of the quantum physicist; observation of the phenomenon changes the phenomenon. Is the world of the anthropologist any different?

Or better yet, perhaps the scientists might want to consider this:

Proverbs 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...

197 posted on 10/30/2006 7:03:28 PM PST by kittycatonline.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
When some religious people kill, on the other hand, they do so because they believe that their god or their religion requires them to. That is the difference. And that religion-inspired killing and torture is evil.

So I think we can agree however that some religions such as Islam that condone and require nonbelievers to be persecuted, is flat out wrong. We should not however say that ALL religion is bad because Islam needs to be reformed. The problem with Islam was with its creator (a human who took guidance from an angel in a cave).

You do realize of course that a populist atheist could put forth a plan to rid the world of religion. He could get other atheists so enthralled that they become more concerned with the ends (no more religion) then they are concerned with the means (many religious followers would have to be killed). Now would that make the atheism itself evil ?

198 posted on 10/31/2006 5:06:03 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
So I think we can agree however that some religions such as Islam that condone and require nonbelievers to be persecuted, is flat out wrong. We should not however say that ALL religion is bad because Islam needs to be reformed. The problem with Islam was with its creator (a human who took guidance from an angel in a cave).

I would agree that some religions are more likely than others to manifest their irrationality in ways which cause harm to people who don't subscribe to that faith. I'd also agree that a segment of Islam is currently experiencing this effect. However, it is ludicrous to assert that this is a problem unique to Islam. One would have to be laughingly oblivious to the history of Christianity -- with its pogroms, Inquisitions, Holocaust and crusades -- to suggest that this a problem solely of Islam.

Further, even if Islam is more prone to experiencing these problems, there is nothing about Islam that prevents a Muslim from living a peaceable life, as the many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Muslim who are not terrorists attests.

What it does share with every religion, however, is a basic irrationality, which causes religious adherents to accept irrational propositions and, as a consequence, to take irrational actions. And sometimes those actions are not only irrational, but evil. (And no, neither Christians nor Christianity is excepted from this...)

You do realize of course that a populist atheist could put forth a plan to rid the world of religion. He could get other atheists so enthralled that they become more concerned with the ends (no more religion) then they are concerned with the means (many religious followers would have to be killed). Now would that make the atheism itself evil ?

Well, no, if such a thing were to occur, then the actions taken in the name of atheism would be evil, but atheism itself would not.

But, moreover, the possibility of this actually occurring is so vanishingly small as to be nearly indistinguishable from zero. The hallmark of atheism is a reliance on rationality over irrationality. There would be nothing rational in killing religious followers in the manner you describe. It could come about by another irrational event, idea or ideology hijacking atheism, as was the case with the communists, but not through atheism itself. Such a thing would be stupendously irrational. (And, in fact, the group psychosis you describe -- whereby people are so enthralled with an end that they fail to examine the ethics of the means to bring about that end -- is just such an irrational event.)

199 posted on 10/31/2006 5:54:19 AM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson