When God sanctions killing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Other blogs
- Eric Drexler
- Richard Evans
- Obama's change.gov blog
- Charles Stross
- Christopher Hitchens
- Robert Reich
- The Lippard Blog
- Clinton R. Dawkins
- Russell Blackford
- Julia Sweeney
- Green views
- Greta Christina
- David Brin
- RESPONSIBLE NANOTECH
- The Stubborn Curmudgeon
- The barefoot bum
- PZ Myers / Pharyngula
- Andrew Sullivan
- Anders Rasmussen Blog
- 95% Of You Are Morons
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(77)
-
▼
February
(16)
- Did they find Jesus H. Christ's bones?
- Amicus, Amicus, Amicus... (sigh)
- Amicus refuses to leave Hell and reveals yet more ...
- Christians say the darndest things
- The Problem with Stupid People is…
- No religion zones? .... Hmmmm
- First came the brain dead, now come the brainwashed
- NEWS FLASH: Monkey becomes Shakespeare
- Is "Conservapedia" a joke?
- Harris versus Sullivan: The battle becomes a pillo...
- What makes Deepak Chopra so stupid?
- Get me off this crazy planet!
- Martin, you're a delusional idiot with the reading...
- Deepak Chopra gets stupid again
- Harris versus Sullivan, the battle continues
- Yes, Andrew, there is a God.
-
▼
February
(16)
5 comments:
Some atheists apparently like their rebel status. Not only does "abandoning God" make others imagine that atheists must be idolaters of themselves before they even get a word out, but a few of them hang out visible shingles that make them look like they belong to Hell's angels... Like Elvis and motorcycle leather jackets in the 1950s and 60s, then, they start to look like the Devil's own ...
Meanwhile, and more importantly, who is best suited to talk to people like the one who wrote this letter? Sam Harris, in writing to Andrew Sullivan, thinks that non-fundamentalists are *worse*! It's almost laughable that Sam thinks that his brand of thinking, in contrast, either can or is going to ultimately reach out to them all...
Eventually a gaggle of these goose-steppers is going to kill someone. I wonder if it will make the news.
Sam's point in saying that religious moderates are worse is that moderates make the world safer for fundamentalists. If there were no such moderates, the fundamentalists would be complete nutjobs and worthy of being considered completely nutters. As it is, we call them zealots and fundamentalists to distinguish them from the 'healthy' theists. He essentially makes the comparison that moderates are (if you'll please pardon the somewhat poor, yet apt analogy) an HIV virus: not lethal in and of themselves, but they leave the door open for opportunistic viruses (against whom we have natural defenses) to destroy society.
AA, you forgot to add that Sam says all this with a straight face!
Sullivan is a nice guy, a true debater, but he's probalby too busy (as am I) to debate all of Sam's thoughts on this. He probably just took it up to push along other debates like this one.
One, I would reject firmly the idea that moderates are enabling radicals the world over. What's more, I'd suggest that Sam's view is *willfully* narrowed to make his point. There are religious people all over the world who are engaged in all manner of humanitary relief and peacemaking.
Two, 'moderates' don't need to disappear in order to understand that some people are nutters!
Third, it is a dangerously utopian and non-evidentiary vision to suggest that they do.
Fourth, atheists seem a bit self-aggrandizing to think that they are uniquely equipped to have a dialogue with religious people in general. There is little evidence for any belief of theirs that they are.
Fifth, the main problems of mankind are arguably all elsewhere, still, as in greed, oppression, vengence, hatred, injustice, little economic opportunity for education ...
Post a Comment