Swart:

1. Understand that when I talk about atheists and fundamentalists I am talking about the sentiments of the movement. I am not talking directly to you, and none of the things I said about understanding abstractions necessarily hold true to you because you are agnostic. I am reciting what evidence I have of these two sides in larger debates, articles, manifestos and so on. 

2. If you would like a clear definition of what kind of God I see, listen to all of Chris Hedges’ speech on Part 2 of his debate with Harris- http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion _politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/

3. My answer about taking the Bible literally doesn’t seem to be puzzling to me at all.  Hedges says “we [my family] took the Bible seriously, and therefore could not take it literally.” Why does someone have to take the story of Jesus literally? That’s not the important point.  The important aspect of Jesus is his teachings.  We don’t even know if he existed.  So I think that the Bible can be taken in a non-literal sense. 

4. Math and science abstractions are far different than the kind of abstractions we are talking about. I am not saying that atheists can’t consider any kind of abstractions; all I am saying is that their belief in the simple flesh and bones of human beings makes no room for Chris Hedges ideas about God as a useful human concept.

5. I find it strange that you see no difference in the actuality of the story of Adam and Eve vs. the one you assumed from before.  I think it is very interesting, not as a realistic, literal story but in terms of God’s fear of man becoming immortal, and a God like him.  I find this fascinating.  You have to look beyond the literal inaccuracy.

I think that the Hedges video will clear up a lot of things in my arguments because he is well articulate.  The religion he talks about is a lot more appealing to me than the literal or fundamentalist version.  And I do think that he is religious, and to quote him in looking at myself “I guess in some vague way I consider myself religious.”

Cat:

Your message read as follows:

* * * * * *

“Believing in a creator God who is deserving of worship makes very little sense. If God existed before the universe existed then who made God?  And why cannot the universe have always existed?”

I don’t believe in this kind of God.  I believe (more so at least) in the kind of God Hedges talks about in his piece “I don’t Believe in Atheists”.  Again, I stress that I do not believe in magic and physical divine ghosts.
* * * * *
And that sounds fine except that neither you nor Hedges really explains what kind of God you DO believe in.  And, insofar as I can understand what the two of you do believe in it sounds very much like pantheism to me—which is perfectly okay.
You go on to say:

* * * * * * *
2.In answer to your question #1 I don’t think any of the passages should be taken literally. In response to #2 I use my conscience.
* * * * * * *
Now that is really puzzling.  If nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally then that would have to include the life of Jesus and his death on the cross and all the other core beliefs of orthodox Christians—and I am not just talking about dominionist or fundamentalist ones.  And when you say you use your conscience to interpret the Bible how is that any different to the attitude of an agnostic like myself?

You further go on to say:

3.You said:

“What you say sounds all very well.  But it really only serves to confirm what I have suggested – namely that the religion which you and Hedges espouse seems superfluous.”
* * * * *
You don’t actually comment on this passage but I see no reason to change what I said.  You are clearly not merely rejecting fundamntalist Christianity but even less dogmatic versions of Christinaity.

This is than followed by:
* * * * * * *
I have come to the conclusion that atheists and fundementalist/dominionist christians have a very hard time with abstract ideas. An atheist mindset rejects any kind of questioning life’s meaning, purpose or beginnings.
* * * * * * *
How on earth can yo say this?  I am an agnostic rather than an atheist and i certainly don’t reject the questioning of lifes meaning, purpose or beginning. And I don’t think it is any different for atheists. I wouldn’t say this about you so why do you say this about free thinkers like myself?

Then comes;
* * * * * *
The Christian mindset rejects all those who do not take the Bible as the literal word of God, plain and simple.  Abstractions are not necassarily bad, and atheists have a hard time with that.
* * * * * *
Hoe on earth can you say that agnostics and atheists cannot think abstractly??  I am a scientist/mathematician and I do think abstractly all the time.
Then comes:

* * * * * * *
4. God did not kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden for eating from the tree of knowledge.  He actually kicked them out (and most people do not know this) because he was afraid that they would eat from the tree of life and become immortal.  That puts a completely different spin on the story, doesn’t it?
* * * * * * *
Your particular spin makes no difference.  The story is still a crock either way since it tells us nothing about the origins of mankind or the nature of God. And if you really believe what you say about God being scared that Adam and Eve would become immortal this makes the story even more nonsensical.  The story says they did eat from the tree so why did they not become immortal?

Then your message takes a turn for the better with the closing passage:

* * * * * *
5. As for my own core beliefs I am not completely sure what I am.  I find purpose and meaning in almost all religions, and philosophies. I am still very young, so I don’t know yet.  I’ll develop my core beliefs later.
* * * * * *
Now that’s more like it since it sounds much like agnosticism to me. I wish you well in your ongoing searching. Quite seriously it is a case of: “Seek and ye shall find”.

Ted Swart:

1.You said:

“Believing in a creator God who is deserving of worship makes very little sense. If God existed before the universe existed then who made God?  And why cannot the universe have always existed?”

I don’t believe in this kind of God.  I believe (more so at least) in the kind of God Hedges talks about in his peice “I don’t Believe in Atheists”.  Again, I stress that I do not believe in magic and physical divine ghosts. 

2.In answer to your question #1 I don’t think any of the passages should be taken literally. In response to #2 I use my conscience.

3.You said:

“What you say sounds all very well.  But it really only serves to confirm what I have suggested – namely that the religion which you and Hedges espouse seems superfluous.”

I have come to the conclusion that atheists and fundementalist/dominionist christians have a very hard time with abstract ideas. An atheist mindset rejects any kind of questioning life’s meaning, purpose or beginnings.  The Christian mindset rejects all those who do not take the Bible as the literal word of God, plain and simple.  Abstractions are not necassarily bad, and atheists have a hard time with that. 

4. God did not kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden for eating from the tree of knowledge.  He actually kicked them out (and most people do not know this) because he was afraid that they would eat from the tree of life and become immortal.  That puts a completely different spin on the story, doesn’t it?

5. As for my own core beliefs I am not completely sure what I am.  I find purpose and meaning in almost all religions, and philosophies. I am still very young, so I don’t know yet.  I’ll develop my core beliefs later.

Cat;

What you say sounds all very well.  But it really only serves to confirm what I have suggested – namely that the religion which you and Hedges espouse seems superfluous. 
You clearly reserve the right to pick and choose what you do or don’t take from the Bible and suggest that many passages which are no very edifying (Abraham being asked by God to kill his son or the book of Job or whatever) should not be taken literally. 
But there are two problems with this attitude. 
1.How do you know which passages to leave out an how do you know which passages ought not to be taken literally?
2.And even when you don’t take a particular passage literally how do you decide what lofty message to extract from the non-literal interpretation?

Even if you are not a dominionist or fundamentalist Christian, holding the Bible in high regard does mean accepting some of the claims it makes and the general skeleton of the faiths associated with it. In particular you must surely accept the notion of a creator God and must surely accept (if you are a Christian rather than a Jew) that Jesus had some kind of special relationship to God and is in some sense a consummate vehicle for revealing the nature of God.

Let me take a specific passage from the New Testament; “As in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive”.  I Corinthians 18:23.  Is this one of the passages you ignore or reject or is it a passage which you interpret in some non-literal way? 
The Adam and Eve story is really a crock – for a whole lot of reasons – not least of which is the fact that it paints God in a very bad light.  Here are Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden living idyllic lives and not knowing the difference between good and evil.  And God tells them not to eat the fruit from the tree which supplies knowledge of good and evil.  And the Devil, in the shape of a serpent, tempts Eve and she does eat the fruit and persuades Adam to do the same.  And then they realize that they are naked and reach for fig leaves or what have you.  And God gets annoyed and Adam blames Eve and God kicks them both out of garden and says that their lives, from that point on, will be rough going.
What kind of God is it who punishes individuals for disobeying His orders when they don’t even know the difference between good and evil.

I am sorry Cat but I cannot buy into this attitude that there must be something wonderful hidden in the Bible which is otherwise inaccessible. As far as we can tell from the NT Jesus believed in heaven and hell together with the notion of eternal punishment.  And any supposed God or Son of God who goes in for eternal punishment leaves me stone cold.

Believing in a creator God who is deserving of worship makes very little sense. If God existed before the universe existed then who made God?  And why cannot the universe have always existed?

As an agnostic I don’t feel the need to have something or somebody to worship.  This does not mean that I don’t stand in awe of the universe. And this does not mean I don’t marvel at the wonders of nature.  And if I have to pick a philosopher with who I can identify with it would probably be Spinoza with his pantheistic outlook.

Hitchens is not a very attractive person and does not behave in a very commendable manner (on this we both agree) but it does not follow that the things he says are untrue or unworthy of careful consideration.

Sorry to be a wet blanket but I am at a loss to understand why it is that you and Hedges feel that some kind of religion is essential to the well-being of the human race.  You both come down heavily on dominionist or fundamentalist Christians but, as I said in my previous message, it is hard to tell what your own core beliefs are – despite the fact that you claim to be a believer of some kind.

To Ted Swart:

First of all, let me define Dominionist Christians.  Usually, we refer to them as fundamentalist Christians, but this is not completely correct.  Fundamentalists called on believers to seclude them selves from society.  Dominionists do the opposite.  They call on believers to dominate the entire social, political system with their beliefs.  Therefore they are different, and the Christian you and I talk about are Dominionists. 

Anyway, I would like to address the issue of literalism vs. broad interpretation.  You use the example from the Bible of God calling on Abraham to kill his son.  While this seems awful and ridiculous, and it is, it should not be taken literally.  Hedges says in his book American Fascists “We [family] took the Bible seriously, and therefore could not take it literally.  The story of Job, for example, is used by atheists to illustrate how absurd the Bible really is.  But for me it is notion that we live in an unfair universe, that good things do not always happen to good people, and bad things do not always happen to bad people.  It would be naive and childish to believe that.  Therefore the Bible should not be taken literally.  As Christians, people should take out bits and pieces of the Bible that concern their daily lives (They would most likely leave out the parts that encourage slaves to obey their masters and when God s treats the Egyptians like garbage and says “I have made sport” of these people.  The Bible is a piece of literature that can teach us lessons about human nature and the way we act.  I agree that there are absurd passages in the Bible, but other issues in the text are still useful and clarify the world for many of us. 

Second, when I say that atheism is worship of self, I mean more so to say that it is easier for people to turn to themselves for worship.  Not all people do, but it is likely.  Harris uses this to defend oppression against people in the Middle East, and even uses it to support torture.  True religion, not corrupt institutional religion i.e. the Dominionsit Christians, keeps that check and balance between the individual and its responsibility to worship God, something other than itself.  So this is not a universal truth.  It is just a generalization, but nonetheless has a point. 

I found Hitchens to be very rude and disgusting in the debate.  He interrupted and people loved him, only because he made witty comments that had nothing to do with the actual subject.  He was very sleazy and the only reason why he was able to attract a crowd was because he said funny things, and used rhetoric, and clichéd phrases.

To Cat;

“You did not provide any evidence to back up your statements.  What do you mean by saying that Hitchens is right at least 9/10 times?”
Whilst I don’t like Hitchens’ crude language let me give you just one example which is both logical and sensible. All three of the so-called Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam accept the story in the Bible about Abraham being challenged by God to sacrifice his own son. And Hitchens says—with reference to Abrahamic based attitudes: “human emancipation begins when this nonsense ends.” Now maybe your sense of logic and mine are different but I find it impossible to square the notion of a loving God and a God who calls upon his favourite Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Hitchens is right when he calls this nonsense. No person in their right mind can possibly believe such utter rubbish. Yet many (probably most) Jews, Christians and Muslims believe this abrahamic mythology. And so it goes on, Time and time again Hitchens tells the truth exactly as it should be told—unfortunately all too often with rough language.

When you say that Hedges does not use logic, explain! I don’t see any instances where Hedges does not use logic.

If you want an example try Hedges claim that the monotheistic religions are responsible for our concept of individualism.  Several people have shown in this and other forums that this is quite simply without foundation. Monotheism can in no way be given credit for the development of the notion of individuals. 

“In regards to Hedges insisting on being religious, I can assure you that it does not come from a stubborness to hold on to the notion of faith.”

Since Hedges actually agrees with many of the ideas which Sam Harris and Hitchens propound it is not at all unfair to suggest that he does stubbornly refuse to give up some kind of religious belief. His criticism of fundamentalist Christianity is at least as strong as that of Harris or Hitchens. So why does he feel the need to defend the notion of being religious?

“It is important to have faith because you then worship something other than yourself.”
“Atheism is dangerous because there is no God, and therefore atheists worship themselves.”
Why do you have to worship anything at all?  I certainly don’t worship myself.

“They become God. Morals seem to vanish. This is why true atheism does not exist.”

As someone who was attached to a formal religion and is now an agnostic I must protest. In changing from believer to free thinking agnostic my morals have not changed one iota.

“Christopher Hitchens seems to have the right answers, but he uses cliches and hackneyed popular phrases that his audience wants to hear to create this illusion.”
Why do you say that he “seems” to have the right answers.  Perhaps if you stopped to think and considered what he actually said you might recognize that many of his answers are the right answers and do not merely seem to be so.

“He condemns all those who are religious, and convinces his followers that they are the enemy. In this way dominionist christians and atheists are the same: they divide the world into us and them. Dominionist christians pervert religion, and turn it into an authorotarian institution that worships those with power such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The atheists, as I have noted before, have no God, and therefore worship themselves as well. Both forces are harmful to those who truly believe in faith. They both create chaos, and one is just as evil as the other. Think about it. Use your brain.”
I am using my brain but I don’t happen to know what you mean by a dominionist Christian.  Is it any different to a fundamentalist Christian?  Fundamentalism simply means sticking to and focusing on the fundamentals. And if you throw overboard the fundamentals of Christianity—as you seem to suggest we should do—what is left?  And is what is left any different to the views of an agnostic like myself?

To Ted Swart:

You did not provide any evidence to back up your statements.  What do you mean by saying that Hitchens is right at least 9/10 times? Give examples.  When you say that Hedges does not use logic, explain! I don’t see any instances where Hedges does not use logic. 

In regards to Hedges insisting on being religious, I can assure you that it does not come from a stubborness to hold on to the notion of faith. It is important to have faith because you then worship something other than yourself. Atheism is dangerous because there is no God, and therefore atheists worship themselves. They become God. Morals seem to vanish. This is why true atheism does not exist.

Christopher Hitchens seems to have the right answers, but he uses cliches and hackneyed popular phrases that his audience wants to hear to create this illusion. He condemns all those who are religious, and convinces his followers that they are the enemy. In this way dominionist christians and atheists are the same: they divide the world into us and them. Dominionist christians pervert religion, and turn it into an authorotarian institution that worships those with power such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The atheists, as i have noted before, have no God, and therefore worship themselves as well. Both forces are harmful to those who truly believe in faith. They both create chaos, and one is just as evil as the other. Think about it. Use your brain.

Hitchens seems to be an unnecessarily crude and obnoxious debater.  Nevertheless, it would appear that he is right at least 9/10 ths of the time. Hedges, on the other hand, seems to have real problems when it comes to logic.  The amount of actual agreement between him and Hitchens is substantial yet—for puzzling reasons—he (Hedges) seems fixated on clinging to the notion that it is important to be religious man or woman of faith. I have yet to see a single convincing reason for this attitude. It is really rather sad when you think about it.

Billy ought to read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am an atheist” There is no big philosophical issue.  It is a question of how you want to present yourself in public.

IMHO the atheistic belief in cosmic meaninglessness is as juvenile as religious belief in cosmic meaningfulness.  Agnostics tend to admit they do not know and do not wish to pretend they do.  In fact they rather enjoy the mysterious sense of wonder and some are offended by know-it-alls of all stripes trying to ruin the ultimate surprise party.

To clarify, Hitchens’s pretentious daddy is W.F. Buckley and Harris’s fraud daddy clown is Alan Dershowitz.

Lefty, in my opinion they’re both like baby birds who swallowed their daddies vomit, be their daddies figurative, biological, or simply opportunistic.  They’re both out-and-out power-whores and no less suckered to traditional myths than any of their opponents, they simply wrap their bs in secularism and fraudulent “rationality.” Hitchens’s bending over for Empire is no less cowardly than Harris’s loathesome apologetics for Israel’s crimes against humanity.  They are both frauds who skillfully dodge the subject of their own gruesome ideologies by pointing out the fallacies of those ideologies, you know “those” ones, over there.

To me, the more interesting debate is between Hitchens and Harris.  Whose brand of atheism is more logical, rational and reasonable, exactly what is the difference between atheism and anti-theism, etc., etc.

“Redundant” isn’t the half of it!

Between Harris the neo-Zionist clown and Hitchens the precious pansy Buckley-wannabe, atheism is taking an unnecessary ugly stick beating.  There are actually atheists and agnostics who don’t have so many damned problems tucked under their wigs.

I dislike Hitchens, I do however find his drunken ranting about religion to be good entertainment. His comments regarding Falwell’s death were much appreciated.

RE: #74583 by Mike Mid-City

So long as you’re deriving your ethics from the Bible it will always be possible to make various and mutually exclusive ethical claims.  For instance, you say that Jesus said that you can’t worship money and God simultaneously.  I don’t know a single Christian that would disagree.  However, many Christians say that you can be a financially prosperous Christian all the same.  You say that Jesus said to “love one another,” but that’s a very vague imperative.  What about the parent that claims corporal punishment is an act of love?  That can be used to justify acts of violence against gays.  Don’t forget Jesus’ righteouss rage in the temple.

Derive your ethics from what’s socially rational and not by authority.  Then you won’t have to worry about textual ambiguity.

I bet that would be a more interesting debate than the Hitchens/Sharpton spectacle.