Yes, that is basically what I was trying to get at.

As for the monkeysphere link on the bottom of the page, having just finished sending out all the invitations to my wedding, and having cut many people from the list, that number 150 is not accurate, assuming anything in that description is true. I've got over 300 people invited to my wedding and if I had more money or weddings cost less, I'd have even more people invited. (roughly 500)

I love pointlesswasteoftime.com. So many fun articles.

Eh. As long as you're not steering planes into buildings or taking your strident :censor: (Keep in mind that I use this phrase in the most holistic of senses. Namely, everyone's opinion including yours and mine is strident :censor: as far as I'm concerned. Deal with it.) to inappropriate venues (I think the anti-religion and anti-bible avatars are stupid, but not really inappropriate.) then everything is fair, really. Sure it's ugly to commemorate someone's death, but schadenfreude, while unbecoming of civilized human beings, is irresistible when it comes to some of the most hypocritical, holier-than-thou, prejudicial things ever to walk the earth. Going "Yippie" might be rather insensitive, but I can't help but entertain the notion that a world without a Fallwell is better than a world with; the same goes for that long line of detestable historic figures which we all love to hate (See: Hitler, although I'm not comparing genocide to being an annoying F****** evangelist and scamming thousands of people out of their money.)

That is something I can live with and respect. But that unfortuneatly, isn't what the New Atheism movement is. As far as I can tell, the new Atheist movement is one that states that all beliefs or non rational thoughts are the source of all evil, and that such thoughts should be removed from civilized human debate/discussion.

As the article pointed to so nicely demonstrates, if you get intelectually upset that your girlfriend cheated on you, then you should not be allowed to participate in public discussions.

Not at all. The "New Atheist" movement (Which isn't really new... it's just the same-old atheists getting sick of some being perpetrated by some ). Irrationality and ignorance are probably the greatest dangers to humanity right now. If everybody had rational beliefs about the nature of the universe, virtually nobody would strap a bomb to oneself and try to take four or five innocent people along for the ride. The point of "new" atheism is not that those things need to be removed from public debate; quite the opposite - it's that it should be acceptable to debate those things, to go up to believers and point out that their beliefs are irrational, and that we are saddened and appalled when people have to be hurt because of irrational beliefs. Believing in the tooth fairy never hurt anyone - which is why we're not waging a war on the tooth fairy. But belief in a personal god that answers prayers and intercedes in real life can be dangerous. In reality, as Dawkins eloquently points out, his criticism of religion is vastly less strident than a negative review of a restaurant.

Why should a religion get more respect than the food in a restaurant? Unlike gods, restaurateurs, chefs, waiters, maître d', busboys, and sommeliers really exist and thus have feelings to be hurt. Same goes for book authors and cinema directors, even the people responsible for Gigli. On the other hand, blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Ok, fast take.

I get a lot of talk about "religion and morals", as if the one had anything to do with the other. If they're related, it would likely be an inverse relation; I don't believe that religion is the root of all evils, but it's responsible for many evils that could simply be avoided, so why not avoid them? Take the "morality" that Holy Books give us, which are responsible for (to name one) the illicitness of gay marriage in the US. If people want to get married, then let them get married! But nooo, we can't, because a 2000-year-old book (which also claims that the world is 6000 years old and that pi=3) says so. So much for morals.

As for "truth": I basically grew up atheist, despite going to a Catholic girls' school-- the one exception you could make was that when I was about five I invented my own "goddess" complete with fairy entourage and all, the reason being that I thought it wasn't fair that all the other kids got to "tell stories" about their gods. But deep down I've always been a firm unbeliever. The reason was a simple one (five-year-old girls can't think of complicated ones):

Look, this is just silly.

It really is the gut feeling. I wasn't brought up to be a believer, so natural common sense took over and basically screamed: no, there isn't an old guy sitting up in the clouds who sees you even though you have a roof over your head, and presumably when you're showering as well. The idea is simply ludicrous, much like believing that the sky is green. I can't prove for 100% that the sky isn't green, in the same way that I can't prove that there isn't a god; but that doesn't mean the sky is green.

And when people start fighting wars and being nasty over all this, it really gets just stupid. Most of us have been brought up to believe that religion is a life-or-death matter, so we don't realize this, but imagine if two countries fought a war spanning hundreds of years-- let's not even mention the Inquisition-- over whether the sky was yellow or green, and that nastiness continued into the present day, morphing into less bloody but still annoying things such as televangelists and people giving out vitriol-filled pamphlets and screaming at you to "repent" or else.

Faced with this scenario, most of us would do the same thing: say, "Could we please just stop it already?"

In a sense, the "New Atheists" are saying just that; if they look "aggressive", it's because they have to be loud, to be heard over the clamour of so many :censored: being stupid. Arguing over religion is no different in nature from arguing economics-- but nobody ever objects to the latter. So stop it already, and if people won't stop, then take it to the debating ground, and may the best win.

Addendum: One additional thing, best put by Russell:

"If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants."

Church of the Atheist?? That reminds me of the Metalocalypse episode where Murderface seeks religion and attends, among other churches, the Church of Satan. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. Very amusing...

I think the first hints of atheism in modern civilization came from the existentialists. One could argue many of America's founders were atheists in private and Christians in public because it got lots of votes. I have heard some argue that they viewed philosophy as the guiding light of the enlightened and religion for passifying the masses. But that is very hard to prove (though also hard to disprove). The first existentialists, though, embraced the Christian lifestyle even though they rejected the supernatural, magical aspects of it. "The Brothers Karamavoz" is a book all about how living the Christian ethic is the ideal while at the same time trying to find secular parallels for things like angels and devils, being born again, God, etc. I think the very first person to totally break from Christianity is Nietzsche, who rejected not just the supernatural parts of Christianity but also the idea that its ethic and lifestyle was a good thing. And he very passionately argued for this. The first and only person I know of to try to formulate a moral code from atheism would be Ayn Rand who, ironically, has allegedly influenced lots of conservatives like Ronald Reagan, Ken Blackwell of Ohio, and Clarence Thomas. If you are into atheism then these would be two interesting authors for you. (Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of both.) If you are into atheism but still like the Christian way of life then maybe Kirkegaard or Dostoyevsky would be for you. (Though personally I think these latter two are total idiots.)

Even though she's an atheist, I think Ayn Rand is an interesting challenge to many atheists. Many, if not most, atheists who advocate science like a religion also embrace the idea that all of society can be scientifically centrally planned by enlightened people who are smarter than all the ignorant masses. Ayn Rand argues that this is doomed to fail and also argues a morality that would conclude such plans to be evil. Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche also argue against it, but they...have a problem with coherency. She also argues that emotions are important. Whereas many advocates science-ity proclaim that emotions are all evil and should be ignored, she argues that they are important signals that should be examined. She does think they should be subservient to the rational, but certainly not ignored. She views it as an evolutionary trait that exists for a reason. It is very similar to Plato's explanation of the proper mental state in "The Republic".

And if you want to have some real fun, read a whole ton of Ayn Rand, at least 2 fiction novels and 2 or 3 non-fiction books, and then go after some Bob Avakian books or MP3s. (Bob Avakian is the chairman of the evil and destructive Revolutionary Communist Party, a staunch advocate of scientific atheism who would probably agree with much of this article.) Bob Avakian would be the sort who does agree with the idea that the ignorant masses of society can be successfully moulded like a scientific experiment by its enlightened scientific elites. It's interesting to imagine a debate between these two atheists who probably have less in common with each other than they do with Christians.

Atheism in modern europe predates Nietzche by at least a couple hundred years. The position of deism was basically standard to philosophers long before Nietzche, and open atheism was common in revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Personally I always felt Nietzche and Rand are both overrated, and Nietzche's part in popularising atheism is rather overplayed; Darwin probably contributed more to atheism as a defensible position on the nature of the universe than Nietzche. Atheistic, or at least secular philosophy also predates existentialism well into the 19th century. There are also theistic or agnostic currents of existentialism which keep me from viewing it as inherently atheistic.

I agree though that Ayn Rand would be much less aggravating if we could pin her ridiculous opinions and overall loathsome personality on some sort of irrational, mind-rotting fundamentalist belief - unfortunately, we can't, and thus have to live with the fact that some people can become so loathsome exclusively on their own efforts, without need for evil or misguided indoctrination.

Apologies. I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but I couldn't help but respond to this.

YOU think KIERKEGAARD was a total idiot?

I'm tempted to make a comment about how you couldn't even spell his name correctly, but that aside, don't you think that's a bit presumptuous? There are many philosophers I don't agree with, Kierkegaard being one, but total idiot?

My friend, I respect your intellect, but there is no one on these forums, yourself included (and Ayn Rand for that matter), who is worthy to lace Kierkegaard's philosophical shoes. Love him or hate him, he's a giant, and much of existentialism and the postmodernity that would follow stands on his shoulders.

Given how existentialism and post-modernism are largely irrelevant crud, I wouldn't say Kierkegaard's role in establishing them is a meaningful indication of intelligence.

Hell, any relation to post-modernism whatsoever should be considered a negative in all respects.

Here's the thing. In my entire life, I've met two (2) Christians who actually follow the written Christian moral code. I could have shot them both. I was in the seminary at the time, so that's saying something. The Christian moral code does not remotely resemble what is practiced by even conservative Christians. We don't veil our women. We don't practice extreme communism. We don't live nomadic lifestyles. We have a banking system. Heck, most Christians can't recite anything that vaguely resembles the ten commandments. (Honestly, I don't think most would recognize them in writing. All that openeth the matrix is mine? Yeah. Hang that in a courthouse.)

Truth be told, since the Roman adoption of Christianity, the Christian moral ethic has been based on largely secular principles refined by Augustine and Aquinas. The line of reasoning that says we'd be amoral people without written guidance is incredibly circular. You read something in the Bible that you identify as moral, so you give it (selective) moral weight. Then you claim that you wouldn't have morality without it when it was your innate sense of morality that lead to its acceptance in the first place.

Jesus was Middle Eastern! *escapes*

Way to establish credibility. Clearly, here is a group of scholars with their fingers on the pulse of the history of philosophy. I guess I should defer.

Back to Ayn Rand - the Avril Lavigne of the history of ideas.

heh.

I love Verithrax's righteous holier than thou attitude.

I think the New Atheist movement is really fond of revisionist history.

I think the south park episode with Dawkins should of had Rand vs the Communists, it would have made better satire.
.

My point is - You haven't established Kierkegaard's relevance, except by pointing out his post-mortem interpretation as a proto-existentialist author. I then proceed to make the point that any connection to existentialism and its bastard child, postmodernism, should - however tenuous - be considered a negative in evaluating someone's importance to the history of ideas.

I agree, that's why I quit reading anything he posts.

I love your inability to write comprehensible posts.

How cute, you show a picture of a document that is over 3,000 years old as a response to revisionist history.

I don't mind religious people who act self righteous. that is thier right to do so.

I do however find it highly ironic when somebody who pronounces a beleif in nothingness gets on a soap box and says that thier version of nothingness is less evil than somebody elses version of nothingness.

By "nothingness" you mean "proposed model of sociology and psychology", right? Just so it's clear that you're talking about the same thing as Verithrax here.