Posted on 01/03/2007 6:19:54 PM PST by shrinkermd
In bestselling books, on websites, and with a national lobbying effort, atheists and other nontheists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life. Some are attacking the foundations of religion itself.
Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith.
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."
These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism.
"They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives.
Yet the authors are anything but modest about their efforts to supplant faith with pure scientific rationality. While critics point out that religion is a genuine reflection of people's experience and will always exist, Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies.
Harris first hit the bestseller bull's-eye in 2004 with "The End of Faith," and he
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
They also have their liberal bias. They do not support the Second Amendment and ALWAYS write pro=gun control polemics.
I've read Dawkins' book and he attacks all religions but specifically the three Abrhamic religions (Judaism, Christanity and Islam).
Nor pink elephants. And that one doesn't believe in pink elephants does not mean such a person is trying to be one, as often charged by their critics.
You don't have to believe something to know a lot about it. It's like a Classical scholar writing about the Greek Gods. And deaf people with perfect pitch can write about music just fine. :)
There is truly nothing new under the sun- these atheist liberal dolts think they're being novel in their approach to villify Christianity? Here's a wake-up call God-Deniers- you've failed for centuries and will continue to fail right up until the point the Christ returns to paint the streets with your spilled blood. http://sacredscoop.com
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Huh, I thought you could vote for anyone you wanted to.
Tell that to Reed Smoot, a Mormon apostle (and NOT a polygamist) elected as a senator from Utah in 1902, but not allowed to be seated in the senate until 1907. Simply, and ONLY because he was a Mormon.
It seems it is consitutional to bar some religions from government. At least if it's not your religion.
Not unless you think equating a voluntary belief with involuntary servitude might be a little over the top as below:
"Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies."
The crap espoused by these so called enlightened intellectuals makes me want to vomit. Their inability to believe in nothing is not my problem. An intelligent person need not deny God.
"do these bright, enlightened atheists have anything to say...?"
As a friend of mine likes to tell me...If I'm wrong, I have led a decent, moral life in Christs name and haven't lost a thing. If the atheist is wrong, well, he is in for one heck of a surprise.
It is called Natural Law.
Sooner or later they will believe.
Oh dear.
The inmates in control of the asylum?
In a lot of places, that might be an IMPROVEMENT!
Wait a %$#$ minute Atheists do not challenge the religious left? The left's God exists while the right's doesn't? Is the CSM headline writer out of his mind? The left and the right Christians both believe in the SAME God and His Son.
To them . . . all religion is
either
a shade this side of insane
or
a shade this side of the crsades or inquisition or all 3.
They never met a god or religionist they couldn't hate enough to rid the world of the burden of them.
Oh, I suspect there IS a demon named Allah.
But he's sure NOT God Almighty!
These secularist zealots tend to be quite vocal in their thirties and forties. It's easy to be an atheist when you're 25. Ever know one older than sixty? They're not so pompous as they start to see their friends and colleagues get cancer and drop dead of heart attacks. Then they start to get outright nuts. Some become clean/germ freaks. Others are just hyper controlling, or become OCD.
I've labeled it A.A.S., or Aging Atheist Syndrome:
"If I'm RIGHT I'm screwed," "If I'm WRONG I'm screwed."
If it weren't so pathetic it'd be funny.
The distinction is subtle, very subtle. Apparently a nontheist thinks that some metaphysical power beyond conception may have done the start your engines thing with the universe. A "hard" atheist just says no, but a "soft" one may not be all that different. Having said that, the terms to describe those who are skeptics about traditional religions metaphysical leaps of faith are breeding like rabbits, and I don't think the resulting terminological issue is very illuminating.
But then I coined my own term for myself, a "near atheist," so a case can certainly be made that I am part of the problem!
Frankly, atheists writing about religion are tiresome. It's like a blind man writing about painting, or a deaf man writing about music. They haven't the foggiest notion what they're talking about. Who wants to read a long rant by people who don't know what they're talking about?
= = =
Indeed.
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.