  |
 |
| |
|
|
|  Sam Harris Strikes BackPosted on May 29, 2007
By Sam Harris Editor’s Note: The following is Sam Harris’ response to Chris Hedges’ essay, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.” Last week the two Truthdig contributors battled one another over the issues of religion and politics during a live debate in Los Angeles. While they both agree on the dangers posed by religious fundamentalism in America, their views on religion in general differ greatly, as you will soon read. Click here for full debate coverage. I am hopeful that the editors at Truthdig will eventually post the unedited video/audio of my debate with Chris Hedges to the website. Once these files are available, readers will be able to judge for themselves which of us made more sense on the subject of religion. I would, however, like to offer a few remarks in the meantime. As I mentioned briefly during the live event, Hedges misrepresented my views on several topics in his opening remarks. Rather than do a little fact-checking after the debate, he chose to make these distortions indelible in his essay, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists.” I have long had an article on my website entitled “Response to Controversy” which addresses many of the spurious points Hedges raises, and I have made a few additions since we met at Royce Hall. The article can be found here. Beyond putting out these small fires, I would like to briefly address the main claims that Hedges makes in his essay: Real religion has nothing to do with superstition, irrational beliefs, or tribalism. God is not an anthropomorphic deity; He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.” It should be immediately clear to all readers that Hedges is simply dodging the fact that millions (probably billions) of people practice religion in the naïve, anthropomorphic, and superstitious forms he would rather not defend. By saying that faith is really something other than the irrational belief in magic books, virgin births, the power of prayer, etc., Hedges ignores how pervasive the problem of religious irrationality is. As many readers will recognize, this is one of the sins of religious “moderation” that I discuss in “The End of Faith”—and I really could not have hoped to find a more lumbering, bellicose, and sanctimonious perpetrator of this obscurantism than Chris Hedges. According to recent polls, 53 percent of Americans think that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and 59 percent believe that Jesus will one day return to Earth wielding magic powers—and yet, religious moderates like Hedges invariably accuse me of “caricaturing” Christianity whenever I criticize these beliefs. Hedges appears to be playing a highly disingenuous game of hide-the-ball with the articles of faith, and it is a game that keeps the world safe for religious lunacy; it also prevents a truly rational approach to spirituality from emerging in our discourse. Monotheism has been historically indispensable in laying the ground for individualism and the modern concept of human rights. While this point is surely debatable (and probably false), even if true, it would not (even slightly) suggest that the biblical God exists. Nor would the historical usefulness of monotheism suggest that monotheism is a benign force in the 21st century. In my opening remarks in our debate, I addressed the notion that religion is (or has been) useful. Nothing that Hedges said subsequently (or wrote in his essay) indicates he understood what I was talking about. There is a difference between the irrational and the non-rational—and the latter is the basis of our spirituality. I have no problem acknowledging that there is a distinction between rational thought and other features of our subjectivity that are “non-rational.” The taste of chocolate is non-rational (without being irrational), as is almost every other sensory or emotional experience. We can, however, rationally discuss what we know about chocolate—its chemical composition, where it comes from, how we cultivate it, etc.—and we might one day fully elucidate the underlying neurology of taste. The same rational mode of discourse could, in principle, accommodate our “spiritual” experiences and our ethical intuitions as well. One of the greatest impediments to our making progress on this front, however, is the fact that people like Hedges continue to demand that a special strain of irrationality called “religion” remain sheltered from criticism.
Finally, many of the comments posted in response to Hedges’ essay have used the fine art of selective quotation to make me appear to hold positions which I do not hold. Hedges, in part, is responsible for this, having led by example. I advise readers who might be alarmed by these quotations to read my books or the articles on my website. Here is an example of such selective quotation, so that readers can appreciate how the trick is done. A reader going by the name of “Tentaculata” has posted the following passage from “The End of Faith” (p. 194):
Readers are thereby encouraged to believe that I support the torture of the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. But the very next sentence in my book reads: “Admittedly, this would be a ghastly result to have reached by logical argument, and we will want to find some way of escaping it.” And the endnote to this sentence reads: “It seems to me that we can stop this inquisitorial slide by recourse to the ‘perfect weapon’ argument presented in chapter 4. There is a difference, after all, between intending to inflict suffering on an innocent person and inflicting it by accident. To include a suspected terrorist’s family among the instruments of torture would be a flagrant violation of this principle.” While I stand by everything I have written in “The End of Faith,” and I encourage readers to consult my “Response to Controversy” article on my website, I cannot be expected to parry every malicious sampling of my text. It is unfortunate that Truthdig has become a forum for attacks of this sort. SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Blueboy1938, August 13 at 10:53 am #
Im one of the most durable advocates for space exploration around, he said just 13 months ago. He supported the Apollo moon landings and missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope, but he said the United States could explore Mars robotically at far less cost and far greater quantity and quality of results. That prompted a former senator from Florida to respond, No Buck Rogers, no bucks. From a Washington Post obituary for James A. Van Allen, Ph. D., August 10, 2006. Van Allen died August 9th, almost exactly two years ago.
Please note that this is an account of his Congressional testimony that clearly says, “He supported the Apollo moon landings . . . .” in his testimony. The Apollo moon landings put men on the moon. Hence, although that exact phrase is not used, it is clear that Dr. Van Allen supported putting men on the moon. The fact that some other obituaries may not recount this testimony or refer to “men on the moon” is irrelevant. Obituaries are always just summaries of a person’s life and don’t state everything they ever did or all other historical events occurring during their lifetimes. Dr. Van Allen was not a principal in the Apollo Program, so it is completely unremarkable that is not prominent in his bio.
Report thisBy Jim H. 2008, August 13 at 6:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
---------------------------More for the
-----------------------’Delusional ‘Moonies’
NOTE: Absolutely no mention of “Men on the Moon”! (STRANGE?)
-----------------From NASA 08.10.06
Pioneering Astrophysicist James Van Allen Dies
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/james_van _allen.html
NASA is remembering pioneering astrophysicist James Van Allen, who died Aug. 9 at the age of 91.
“Van Allen was at the forefront of physics. During his career, he was the principal investigator for scientific investigations on 24 Earth satellites and planetary missions, beginning with the first successful American satellite, Explorer I, and continuing with Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. He also helped develop the first plans for an International Geophysical Year.
In recognition of his contribution to U.S. space research, Van Allen received 13 honorary doctorates,
NASA’s Medal of Exceptional Achievement,
the Commander of the Order du Merite pour la Recherche et L’Invention
and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society.”
NOTE: Absolutely no mention of “Men on the Moon”! (STRANGE?)
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, August 12 at 5:21 pm #
The two hyperlinks in the quote in my previous post did not translate. Sorry.
Here are the web pages referred to:
The Van Allen Belts:
http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
Travel to the Moon”
Report thishttp://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
By Blueboy1938, August 12 at 5:06 pm #
There was no mention in any of the half-dozen obituaries I read that Dr. Van Allen was ever “head of NASAs Space Exploration Program or that he resigned in protest over the prospect of manned space exploration. He did favor robotic missions beyond the Moon as greater in cost/benefits:
“I’m one of the most durable advocates for space exploration around,” he said just 13 months ago. He supported the Apollo moon landings and missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope, but he said the United States could explore Mars robotically “at far less cost and far greater quantity and quality of results.” That prompted a former senator from Florida to respond, “No Buck Rogers, no bucks.” From a Washington Post obituary for James A. Van Allen, Ph. D., August 10, 2006. Van Allen died August 9th, almost exactly two years ago.
To address the Van Allen Belt radiation issue:
“To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.
“This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that “lead shielding meters thick would have been needed”, NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.
“The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth’s magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth’s equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.
“For more information, please see The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission.”
Report thishttp://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
By Jim H. 2008, August 12 at 3:10 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
----------------FOR THE DELUSIONAL ONES
------------------------THE MOON?
When Dr. James Van Allen who was once head of NASA’s “Space Exploration Program” learned of serious plans to attempt landing men on the moon;
he Quit the program!
When consulted, Van Allen said: “present day technology has not discerned a method to safely pass through a highly charged ‘atomic’ radiation zone. He was referring to “THE VAN ALLEN BELT”!
James Van Allen PHD. was an Astrophysicist for which the Van Allen Belt was named,
Report this(a turbulent area of radio-active energetic charged particles that swirl about in an area of outer space commencing at 3,700 miles from the earth.)
When Dr. Van Allen was later asked his reaction to “Men having landed on the Moon”, he said: “It was a great television show”!
-----------(He knew it never happened!)
By Blueboy1938, August 11 at 5:31 pm #
What’s interesting is that I started off reading Jim H’s post thinking he was making a very good point, until I got to the anti-man-on-the-moon statement. I guess there’s just no chance of making a dent in armor that thick, no matter what facts you find. See you around TD, Ted.
Report thisBy Ted Swart, August 11 at 4:58 pm #
Well now Blueboy1938 I am alwasy happy to interact with you and I must thank you for the good laugh regarding the possibility sending Jim H on a trip to the moon. BUT . . . there is not enough time in the day to grapple with conspiracy theorists who have very flimsy reasons for their delusions.
Report thisIf 1938 means you wer born in 1938 then I am ten years older than you but not necessarily wiser.
It is hard to find discussion groups worth participating in but every now and the TruthDig seems to rise to the occassion. A pity that it gets a bit acrimonious at times.
Cheers.
By Blueboy1938, August 11 at 4:33 pm #
Aw, Ted, have a little more patience. By his last post, Jim H, really sounded ready to accept the man on the moon reasoning and concrete evidence - NOT!
Hey, I’ve got it, let’s take up a Truth Dig wide call for contributions to send Jim H on the next mission to the moon so he can see for himself;-)
Report thisBy Ted Swart, August 11 at 10:13 am #
There seems to be no point in carrying on this discussion. It is simply silly of you to call me a liar and I must leave you to your own muddled thoughts which mix up some true statements about religion with a phoney rejection of the moon landings.
Report thisI hereby quit.
By Jim H. 8/11/2008, August 11 at 6:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:Ted Swart, August 10 at 9:12 pm
This LIAR says: “---you ‘rejecet’ religious claims as utterly unreasonable and,--- you advocate belief in a gigantic conspiracy theory with respect to the moon landings---” Why do you find it difficult to be more consistent?”
If you didn’t LIE, you could ‘not’ “find” me “more consistent”!
I do not refer to a “gigantic conspiracy theory” at all! You LIE! Check my comment. (below)
I say: ‘Religion” is a “Crime against Humanity” run by thieves!
And I say: “America has NOT “Put a man on the Moon”!
This too is a “Crime against Humanity” run by thieves!
Or.PROVE otherwise!
THE UNIVERSE
Mass/energy never disappear Ever were ever here!
With nothing to create, a so-called Creator-God
Is an impossible superfluous nonentity!
J.H. 5/8/07
THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Report thisBeginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend theres no beginning or end
Religions pollution is no solution for Dawins Evolution
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
J.H. 8/29/06
Religions are criminal conspiracies!
By Ted Swart, August 10 at 9:12 pm #
Jim H;
I am really puzzled by the fact that you persist in maintaining that there is no evidence to substantiate the fact that NASA has indeed landed men on the moon and returned them to earth.
Report thisYou have clearly not read the information which Blueboy provided and ask for a single piece of evidence. You don’t seem to recognize that the many pieces of evidence available includea a lot more than the eingle piece of evidence you are calling for.
On the one hand you rejecet religious claims as utterly unreasonable and, on the other hand, you advocate belief in a gigantic conspiracy theory with respect to the moon landings for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Why do you find it difficult to be more consistent?
By Blueboy1938, August 10 at 5:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I appreciate so much your kind words, especially all those in screaming caps, Jim H (8/9/2008, August 9 at 7:32 pm). Your civility is exemplary - of something.
If you had taken the time to read the many, many analyses I referred to @ http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm you would know the facts. As I said in my previous post, they overwhelmingly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Apollo Program did in fact put men on the moon, and just as importantly, brought them back to talk about it and to provide physical evidence of it. Naturally, the operative word here is “reasonable.” I leave it up to other readers to determine who in this debate is being reasonable.
I do have an error to correct: The rock retrieved by Apollo Astronauts totals 842 pounds, not 862. Sorry.
Now, since you, Jim H, are apparently reluctant to see for yourself the responses to all the significant cavil regarding the authenticity of the manned moon landings, I will run the risk of excessive space by quoting two very cogent points that illustrate the hairsplitting and nit picking of the nay sayers and the excellence of Mr. Robert A. Braeunig’s responses:
“Earth based telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.
“The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012”, however the Earth’s atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST’s resolving power is 0.05”. At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM’s footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth.
“The only sure way to prove the moon landings really happened is to return to the Moon and see if the Apollo hardware is there.
“Direct visual verification would certainly put an end to the issue, however there are at least three pieces of hardware on the Moon that are not in dispute. Apollos 11, 14 and 15 erected laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Laser beams are routinely fired at these reflectors through telescopes at McDonald Observatory in Texas and near Grasse in southern France. Timings of these reflected beams are used to measure the Earth-Moon distance to an accuracy of one inch. To explain the existence of these reflectors the hoax advocates have no choice but to claim they were placed on the Moon by robotic landers; a huge undertaking for which there is no supporting evidence. The simple answer: the Apollo astronauts placed them there. (More on robotic missions later.)”
So, Jim H, I suppose that, given your parting description of me, I might just have had a hand in placing those laser reflectors.
Report thisBy Ted Swart, August 9 at 6:55 pm #
Jim H:
Why on earth do you weaken anything sensible you might say by falsely claiming that there is NO EVIDENCE that men have been landed on and returned from the moon. I agree totally with blueboy1938. The evidence is overwhelming tha this has happened.
I am not sure I understand AdvOOcate’s quote from T.S. Eliot to the effect that:
“ No great deed is done by falterers who ask for certainty.”
Poets do say the strangest things some times. I would have thought that falterers don’t necessarily ask for certainty and it seems to me that the use of the word flaterers in this quote is pejorative.
Scientists in the main live their lives on the basis of porbabilities not certainties. In this respect they are totally different to religious advocates who tend to claim that they are indeed certain about their faith. They (scientists) are not falterers but simply realists. They may well act and in some sense should act as if they are certain about at least some things but the best we can do is do go by the ovewhelming weight of probability.
Report thisAnd sending men to and retrieving them from the moon falls into that category. It is ridicualous to cling to some ill conceived conspiracy theory that it has not happended.
By Blueboy1938, August 9 at 4:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In addition to the 862 pounds of moon rocks returned by Apollo Astronauts, there is an entire compendium of facts to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt - and I stress reasonable - that the Apollo Program actually put men on the moon (as opposed to the Man in the Moon;-). Please see: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Report thisBy Adv00cate, August 9 at 3:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for your response.
No great deed is done by falterers who ask for certainty. T.S. Eliot
Best regards.
Report thisBy Jim H. 8/8/08, August 8 at 4:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
--------------I COMMEND SAM HARRIS!
Re: Adv00cate, August 8 at 1:59 pm
AdvOOcate says: Mr Harris needs to be held accountable for---the statement---
“All people of faith are mentally unbalanced”
-------------------------------------------------
------------I totally disagree with AdvOOcate!
Sam Harris is to be HIGHLY commended for his astute evaluation of all those ‘mezmerized, indoctrinated delusional Robotic imbeciles who accept the words of ‘Charlatans’, and, absurdities from a book of fairytales; that a non-existant “Wholy Ghost” appeared out of ‘nowhere’ and with the help of a “Jesus” who never lived, “Created a World that already existed for millions of years! These same ‘Robots’ voted for an imbercile president, and also believe “We landed a Man on the Moon”!, and anything else you tell them despite the ABSENCE OF PROOF!
For they have lost all ability to reason, or think independant thoughts and be critical!
And all those “mentally unbalanced” ‘Robots’ are running around ‘loose’, and are a great threat to those of us who are sane and intelligent, and are out-numbered by a very millions of the idiots that I believe AdvOOcate epitomizes!
-------------------THE UNIVERSE
Report thisMass/energy never disappear Ever were ever here!
With nothing to create, a so-called Creator God
Is an impossible superfluous nonentity!
------------------------J.H.
By Adv00cate, August 8 at 1:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr Harris needs to be held accountable for some of the statements he has made and his actions.
All people of faith are “mentally unbalanced?”
His MRI studies will “prove” believers are nut cases?
While this is being all hashed out, isn’t it time to cut back some of the university budgets where this nonsense all started from? How about cutting the budgets in half of these schools that are infected with this new (or is is old) dialectical materialism?
We could start with Tufts. It’s time to put Dan Dennett out to pasture.
Someone needs to investigate the claim that Sam Harris is intellectually lightweight - no make that featherweight.
Sure he stands to make some serious coin with his books. But how about a little truth?
Report thisBy Gary, July 25 at 9:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Given the state of mind of the many religionists in the world, I genuinely fear for the future of mankind. Reason, science and freethinkers have propelled the human race into a brighter future, while religious believers from the dawn of religion to today have done their best to stifle human growth and potential. The Middle East is the classic example.
Report thisThe unfortunate reality is that believers seem unable or unwilling to face the truth: That there is absolutely no proof that any sky god exists, and their bible was written by men, not a god. But they seem willing to bet everyone’s life on it as they prepare for armageddon. And why? Because they feel comforted with the belief that there is someone in charge of life and if they maintain a certain belief, they will get to spend an eternity at the foot of god. And if you don’t believe it, then you will have to die.
I’ve lost all faith in Mr. Hedges. I’m just waiting for my first christian suicide bomber.
By Jim H., February 18 at 7:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
---------------EVOLUTION IS A FACT!
Report this---------NATURAL SELECTION IS A THEOORY!
Evolution is an observable fact. We can see it, measure it and record it.
A theory is something that explains why facts are what they are.
Natural Selection is a theory that explains the FACT of evolution.
We can debate whether the theory is right or not, but we can’t
debate the facts. Facts are facts. It is undeniably a fact that life
forms on this earth have changed and continue to change over
generations. That is the fact of evolution.
Scientists have seen it in our lifetime from bugs to birds.
And most creationists do not deny species do change.
By Jim H., February 18 at 7:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
An Enslaving Force
Report thisFew people realize the extent of the reach, influence and overwhelming power of religion. Nor do many people have any idea as to the enormity of the Vatican’s financial resources!
Very likely, the Vatican is the wealthiest entity by a factor of 100 that the world has ever seen. And its tax-free status, weekly and “willed” donations of millions, when added to income from all its many worldwide investments, positions those who control that fabulous bottomless pool of wealth as the world’s most influential lobbyist or purchaser!
This may be one of the reasons the Pledge of Allegiance was plagiarized and altered from “one nation indivisible” to the bigoted “one nation (divided) under God.” And why 100 senators disgraced our country and themselves by reciting the religious pledge on the steps of the senate and before television beamed to the entire world!
The time has come to discredit the outrageous assertions by the Ponzi-racketeering charlatans who promote the plague-like disease religion that survives by warping the minds of innocent children and fools, robbing them of their candy and toy money, and enslaving them to a life as shills who help perpetuate the criminal religion schemes.
“Secular humanists,” “non-believers” and other sane and rational people know that no proof survives the fairytales of a magician named Jesus or his magic miracles, nor is there any proof whatsoever that there is or ever was a supreme creator God. Yet this and other lies are used to perpetuate their rotten scheme religion.
People who live in the “real” world refuse to accept silly lies, fairy tales and farce as fact, whether it be about “Santa Claus” “The Tooth Fairy,” “Donald Duck,” a “Jesus” or a “Creator God.” Nor should they be lumped with or considered analogous with a gang of thieving, lying, mind-warping pedophiles who use a how-to manual of pornography, pillorying, stoning to death and other forms of outright bigotry for their weekly stimulus to more proselytizing.
The senators who said that fallacious rendition of our once great Pledge of Allegiance shall be remembered as the promoters of a criminal enterprise and the abettors or cohorts of a bunch of thieving slavers who invade every phase of society with their lying assertions that “our country was founded as a Christian nation.
With their plagiarism of our once great Pledge of Allegiance, their repeated attempts to force their “Godism” on all schoolchildren and their ever increasing use of all forms of media and gimmicks to mesmerize, indoctrinate and bludgeon the American people with their outrageous, endless efforts to dominate us all with a theocratic form of government renders them criminals!
And the likes of George W. Bush and his ilk by giving millions of dollars to faith-based groups is bidding them “Godspeed!”
By mejdrich, February 18 at 4:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I know this is an old link, but claiming Hitler wasn’t christian is just plain idiotic.
He was baptized, raised, and died a practicing Roman Catholic. It’s true he killed christians, but Hitler seemed to be in the business of killing everyone.
The idea that Hitler was an atheist is purely a myth. There was a circle of neo-pagans (not atheists) surrounding Hitler, and the man himself remained christian, even using Jesus as an inspiration for his Nazism. Check out “Positive Christianity” for details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
Report thisBy j.hud, August 18, 2007 at 9:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re. Jim. H
That link may not have worked. Here it is again:
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
Happy perusing.
Report thisBy j.hud, August 18, 2007 at 7:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Jim H.
I think I would have to agree with another member about leaving you alone to yourself with your incoherency. I advise you to peruse this link:
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/hitler…
I suppose that you will then begin to plagiarise by using all of Hitlers allegations against Christianity to bolster your own arguments.
Thank you for the amusement you have provided. Henceforth you will only be amusing yourself.
Report thisBy Jim H., August 17, 2007 at 5:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 95683
Report thisj.hud
j. hud, (OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED IDIOT!) SAYS:"---Hitler was not Christian."(?) (WRONG!) (THIS IS A LIE!)
In this, the twenty first century, the “Computer Age” there is no excuse for this lie!
j.hud Makes a “BOLD”, ASININE CONTEMPTIOUS PEDANTIC ATTEMPT TO INSULT HIS MENTAL SUPERIORS!
Any ‘LITERATE’ person using Google, or many other Search Engines, can easily discern the ‘FACT’ that Adolph Hitler was “CHRISTENED” A CATHOLIC! “CHRISTIAN”!, and remained a CATHOLIC “CHRISTIAN”! until he died!
He made many speeches confirming this, also, easily available to a ‘LITERATE’ PERSON!
Further, Hitler’s NAZI PARTY was aided by the Italian, “CHRISTIAN”, MUSSOLINI, the “CHRISTIAN” VATICAN, and the “CHRISTIAN” POPE; in his endeavor to KILL all JEWS, and accede to World dominationn.
“CHRISTIANS”, and others killed were ‘mere’ “COLLATERAL DAMAGE”!
Much as your sadistic buddy in the White House views the two hundred thousand or more women and children he slaughtered in his efforts to “control the flow of “cheap Iraq crude oil”.
About the “Mein Kampf” “Bible”?
Hitler wasn’t the first, nor, the last to realize the other “Bible” is a pornogaphic How-to Manual for pillagers, rapists, sodomizers, slaughterers, an other debauchers of innocent children and fools, and like many others before and since, he justifyably believed any alternative would be an improvement!
By j.hud, August 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Jim H.
Unless you haven’t studied history properly, you must be aware that Hitler was NOT Christian.
Report thisWhat was written on the Nazi banner was just a slogan to heighten the ‘grandeur’ of the Nazi regime.
Why else do you think he went off killing Christians and insisting that his own book , ‘Mein Kampfe’ be the ‘bible’ of his country?
Do the background research if you please, and then make bold statements.
By Jim H., July 25, 2007 at 12:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
MENSA’s GOALS
Report thisIn response to my recent query about Mensa’s interest or actions relating to Religion,
Kymberley Wilson Membership Secretary, Mensa, Australia
replied:
“ Mensa, as an organisation has no official position on religion, politics or any other subject” (?)
----------------------------------------------------------
I say: in view of Mensa’s stated aims included in “Mensa’s goals” “---to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity;(?) (Subject?)(and) to encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence;(?) (Subject?)
ERGO:
How can Mensa ‘reasonably’ ignore the destructive influences to “human intelligence” caused by the World wide propagation of such horrendous lies and absurdly false assertions that perpetuate the delusional mental imbalance of the religiously indoctrinated which is effected by criminal charlatans Fallwell, Baker, Haggard, the Pope, and their ilk, who enslave the masses in their ceasless efforts to replace Democracy with the Theocratic domination of the entire World!
Certainly denial, or aloofness to this, the most serious threat to “human intelligence” on the face of the earth, is an outright contradiction of your “Mensa’s goals” wherein they say: “---to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity;(?)(and) to encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence;(?)
How does Mensa, the epitome of intelligensia of the world, live with the knowledge they, by there ignorance, or ignoring this, the most destructive force to the “intelligence” of “humanity”, are thereby living a lie of cold hearted, unconcerned negation!
If the intellectual, or intelligent elites of the world, will not make any effort to prevent the destruction of humanity’s intelligence, by their: “research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of (false) intelligence”, we, and they, are all doomed to the servitude of criminal charlatan imberciles who shall soon control the entire earth!
-----------------------------------------
Mass/energy never disappear
Ever were ever here!
J.H. 5/8/07
With nothing to ‘create’, a “so-called “Creator-God” is an impossible superfluous nonentity!
By DSA, July 11, 2007 at 5:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Greetings Everyone!
Thanks for your input on the subject of Faith!
As we are currently experiencing great dangers and conflicts largely due to Faith, it is mandatory that the free thinkers speak up and make their voices heard.
Reasoning does not seem to be a concern of the devout. All they generally expect is just to believe what they say and join their path It does not matter how destructive the consequences can be
In reality, all I experienced in this life was just the constant interactions with mankind. The rest I see is our beautiful planet with its abundant natural resources and beauty.
While Im here, I would love to enjoy every moment of this human experience as a free soul, a free spirit. I do not wish to be burdened with Faith while this life of mine lasts
When it is time to leave, I will leave it with immense gratitude for the privileges I have enjoyed. What happens next is to be seen or may never be seen
In-the-meantime, I end this note with love & best wishes to all,
DSA
Report thisBy Jim H., July 11, 2007 at 3:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
7/11 at 3:39 pm
COPY
NOTE: This was first sent to several MENSA email addresses including National, International, Australia.
--------------------------------------------
TO MENSA;
RE: Mensas goals
Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence;?) and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.
-------------------------------------------------
Hello You-all; With the above stated aims in mind,
Report thisWhat, if anything is MENSA and their Members doing to enlighten the world about the EVILS caused by the propagation of the criminal ponzi-like racketeering scheme Religion, that indoctrinates, and enslaves innocent childrlen and fools and converts them to shills to proslytize and spread their infectious plalgue-like disease that causes delusional thinking, and an absurd child-like fairytale conception of the world that is a constant threat to those of us who live in the real world and are ceaselessly threatened by their illogical TAX-FREE AND (faith-based!) GOVERNMENT-FUNDED, BIGOTRY?
By Jim H., July 9, 2007 at 9:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 83666
DSA
Thank you for your good thoughts about Sam Harris!
At:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070529_sam_harris_ fights_back/
He ‘too’, like Rushdie, has taunted a gigantic man-eating octopus, and must take many precautions to prevent a repeat of the Madalyn Murray OHair debacle that the Religious faithful fanatics do a dance of joy over!
Although I too am thankful for The End of Faith, I believe no one has come within a light year of pointing to, or discussing the epic proportions of the ever broadening destructive criminal influence, evil intentions, designs and calamitous results of the Religious Faith Organizations unwavering pursuit of total Theocratic domination our once Democratic, USA, and the entire World!
How many people can even imagine: any one organization of any kind, that can, and does accumulate, free from taxes, every day, more money, including donations of taxpayers hard earned funds that are contributed to them by G. W. Bushs Faith"-based" operations, than any other company, business, or other type of honest enterprise in the world, accumulates in one month?
And, how many people can even imagine: the amount of influence all this ill gotten wealth is able to purchase?
Through the use of all type Holding Companies and many other similar methods of hiding ownership, the Religious Organizations own, or control a major portion of all Media, including newspapers, radio stations, publishing houses, television stations, and, many Congressmen, and Senators, plus G. W. Bush, and Dick Chaney!
These same Religious Faith Organizations have repeatedly caused our bigoted Congress, and bigoted US Supreme Court, to deny, and violate many parts of our US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights!
These same Religious Faith Organizations have repeatedly supported, and influenced the installation of G.W. Bush a bigot, and Military Deserter, into the White House!
These same Religious Faith Organizations continually object to, and repeatedly violate the Constitutional Law: Separation of Church and State!
These same Religious Faith Organizations repeatedly deny womans rights!
These same Religious Faith Organizations use the Pulpit to electioneer and promote religious bigot candidates for elective office, and use big bushels of their money lucre to help this happen!
These same Religious Faith Organizations also use bundles of money to pay lobbyists, and influence all Congressional actions that are destructive of our Democratic way of life and detrimental to all US citizens!
These same Religious Faith Organizations fight against any and all means of limiting family size, including medicines that prevent childbirth, because without innocent children to brainwash, mesmerize, brand, and indoctrinate into their fantasy world of Godism their Religious Organizations would soon dry up and go out of business!
Of course this is but a mere minute insight into the monstrous behemoth the Ponzi-like racketeering Religious Faith Organizations embody and represent, and the perpetual horrific infectious plague-like disease they are ever more widely spreading every hour of every day through the means of newspapers, radio, and television, and even door-to-door-proselytising!
And, if we secularists, the rational ones, dont soon confront this war on sanity and reason, before long, if it is not already too late, we will be surrounded, smothered and inundated by the horrible putrid dung these Religious Faith Organizations are everyday filling the airwaves, and earthly environment with!
Report thisCiao, Jim
By Jim H., July 8, 2007 at 4:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 83666
DSA
Thank you for your good ‘thoughts’ about Sam Harris!
He too, like Rushdie, has taunted a gigantic man-eating octopus, and must take many precautions to prevent a repeat of the Madalyn Murray O’Hair debacle that the “Religious “faithful” fanatics do a dance of joy over!
Although I too am thankful for “The End of Faith”, I believe no one has come within a ‘light year’ of pointing to, or discussing the ‘epic’ proportions of the ever broadening destructive criminal influence, evil intentions, designs and calamitous results of the Religious “Faith” Organization’s unwavering pursuit of total Theocratic domination our once Democratic, USA, and the entire World!
How many people can even imagine: any ‘one’ organization of any kind, that can, and does accumulate, free from taxes, every day, more money, including donations of taxpayers hard earned funds that are contributed to them by G. W. Bush’s “Faith"-based" operations, than any other company, business, or other type of honest enterprise in the world, accumulates in one month?
And, how many people can even imagine: the amount of influence all this ill gotten wealth is able to purchase?
Through the use of all type “Holding Companies” and many other similar methods of hiding ownership, the Religious Organizations own, or control a major portion of all Media, including newspapers, radio stations, publishing houses, television stations, and, many Congressmen, and Senators, plus G. W. Bush, and Dick Chaney!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations have repeatedly caused our ‘bigoted’ Congress, and ‘bigoted’ US Supreme Court, to deny, and violate many parts of our US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations have repeatedly supported, and influenced the installation of G.W. Bush a ‘bigot’, and Military Deserter, into the White House!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations continually object to, and repeatedly violate the Constitutional Law: “Separation of Church and State!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations repeatedly deny “woman’s rights”!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations use the “Pulpit” to electioneer and promote religious bigot candidates for elective office, and use big bushels of their money lucre to help this happen!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations also use bundles of money to pay lobbyists, and influence all Congressional actions that are destructive of our Democratic way of life and detrimental to all US citizens!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations fight against any and all means of limiting family size, including medicines that prevent childbirth, because without innocent children to brainwash, mesmerize, brand, and indoctrinate into their fantasy world of ‘Godism’ their Religious Organizations would soon ‘dry up’ and go out of business!
Of course this is but a mere minute insight into the monstrous behemoth the ‘Ponzi-like’ racketeering Religious “Faith” Organizations embody and represent, and the perpetual horrific infectious plague-like disease they are ever more widely spreading every hour of every day through the means of newspapers, radio, and television, and even door-to-door-proselytising!
And, if we secularists, the rational ‘ones’, don’t soon confront this war on sanity and reason, before long, if it is not already too late, we will be surrounded, smothered and inundated by the horrible putrid dung these Religious “Faith” Organizations are everyday filling the airwaves, and earthly environment with!
Report thisCiao, Jim
By DSA, July 3, 2007 at 4:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Greetings Everyone!
Thanks Sam for highlighting the destructive forces on this earth!
The faithful are proving your point…
How can anyone believe in such suicidal, primitive concepts?
Hope our human race will wake up soon and see the light!
With love & best wishes to all,
DSA
Report thisBy Ted Swart, June 25, 2007 at 5:35 pm #
BlueBoy1938 #80977
Methinks the treatment the RCs meted out to Galileo was understandable but not justified. And what was totally unjustified was the inordinate amount of time it took the church to apologize for their behaviour.
I note that the previous Pope ruled that it was perfectly in order for Catholics to accept the occurrence of evolution— without him endorsing any particular theory of evolution. In fact he spoke quite correctly in terms of theories (plural) of evolution.I am not sure the current Pope is equally sensible.
Report thisThe trouble with these so-called creation science museums is that they reject the occurrence of evolution by using pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and totally ignore the mass of evidence which attests to its occurrence. I see from one of today’s news items that scientists have some real hope that they may be able to piece together the Neanderthal genome.
By Jim H., June 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 80947
Rev. Ted Swart
You say: “--- amenable to being coaxed into---” (?)
What is it you want to, or need to? “coax” someone into?
I say: Are those the words of someone holding a “Doctorate”?
You sound like you are “proselytizing”!
People do not need coaxing to read interesting sensible words of intelligent people!
“Coaxers” are PHONIES, con men, promoters, salesmen, or “Fundamentalist” religious ‘godists’, “Evangelists”, and other proselytizers, including sexual predators!
Intelligent people, saying intelligent things (like me) do not have to “coax” people into something!
About “Canning”? Perhaps if you knew ‘he’ was an ordained Minister, you would be more suspect of his reasoning, or his ability to reason? Religious ‘Godists” of all kinds find it impossible to cope with, or avail themselves of ‘critical thinking of any kind, but when it comes to their brainwashed views of their make-believe, fairytales idolatry, they go bizerk, and do, or say things no rational person would ever do, or say!
However, I am flattered that Canning admits to reading several of my postings! At least ‘he’ found ‘something’ therein to repeatedly draw him back thereto!
And although he calls my words “irrational”, don’t take it seriously, because, as I have already said, or implied, he is a Fanatical Godist and takes offense at anyone who shows a bit of rationality when discussing the many reasons for OUTLAWING RELIGION, and locking up all the criminal charlatans who promote that ‘ponzi-like racketeering scheme that brainwashes, indoctrinates, mesmerizes and enslaves innocent and fools like Canning, converts them to shills and sometimes rapes them in return for granting them forgiveness for having “sinned”, whatever ‘that’ means!
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, June 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm #
From the point of view of the Catholic Church at the time, it made perfect sense to “throttle” Galileo Galilei’s incipient advocacy of a “sun centered solar system.” It conflicted with the church’s view that God’s creation was perfect and immutable and ran afoul of dogma of the time. Galileo himself professed to be a devout Christian and Catholic. After all, the Church was under siege from the time Martin Luther nailed the “95 Theses” to the door of the Wittenberg castle church in 1546 and feeling a bit defensive towards divergent opinion. Scientific thought and faith are not mutually exclusive, as attested by Albert Einstein as well. All sorts of mischief stem from the mistaken application of religious ideas, unfortunately. If the so-called “creationism” continues to make inroads into the benighted pockets of hillbilly education, an ignorant theocracy can’t be far behind. Vigilance against that possibility must be uppermost.
Report thisBy Jim H., June 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 80930
Rev. Ernest Canning
Don’t cry all over your Alb! Or the Altar!
I say: Thank you for reading some of my postings!
You say: “--- pages and pages of irrational(?) rants---"(?)
I say: Don’t you mean “---pages and pages of ‘IRREVERANT RANTS’?
But, even though you have some trouble reading and comprehending the brilliant sagacity of my brief sojourns through the slimy ‘dungeons’ of the fanatical religious minds of those felonious criminal charlatans who brainwash innocent children and fools ‘like you’; that I have so often undertaken, to help bring you, and others of your sick ilk, out of your entranced insanity and into the REAL WORLD, I thank you for taking the trouble of trying to understand it all.
You say: “---carrying on a civil dialogue---"(?)
I say: Surely, even ‘you’ know ‘your’ ilk is not capable of “---carrying on a civil dialogue---” with anyone who does not accept your absurd parroting of the farcical religious ‘Godism’!
And, regarding my “absence”, perhaps you are ‘married’ to this ‘muddle of smears’ or, your life is so otherwise boring, that this, is your only means for ‘jolly’ contentment!
But, strange as it may seem to you, besides having numerous other things I must to attend to on a daily basis, I do at times find the idiotic simplicity of you ‘fundamental religious ‘godist’ bigots’ and ‘hypocrites’ tiresome, boring, and otherwise fatiguing, (the ‘repeats’ are intended to stress the point!). And I realize that
when people are not allowed to be critical of their idiotic notions under pain of “mortal sin”, whatever that is, which they believe might even send them to “Hell”. whatever that is; I am suddenly aware I am trying to reason with the cancer ridden minds of the insane, and that they are better left to their own deserts, or some treatment in the asylum they are patients in!
The fact that you read my “---irrational rants---” is proof that I am not “--- talking to (myself) himself---”!
Report thisBy Jim H., June 24, 2007 at 1:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 80928
nahida
You say:"---impose(?) their atheistic ideology---” (?)
I say: “atheism” IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY! AND, ATHEISTS DO NOT “IMPOSE”!
ATHEISTS REJECT LIES ARE TRUTHS! AND, CALL THEM LIES! THAT IS NOT IDEOLOGY!
YOU TOO, NEED A dictionary! SEE HERE BELOW!
DICTIONARY:
atheism
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
I say: “Disbelieving” in, or the “denial” of something, does not entail “IDEOLOGY”!
And ,only a FOOL would assert, or imply such!
I say: ‘You’, mezmerized RELIGIOUS ROBOTIC IDIOTS in an effort at PEDANTISM, combine together ALL who do not believe in make-believe fairytales, OR RELIGIONS LIES, AND BRAND THEM “Atheists” when ‘they’ simply do not accept as true, lies about things that cannot be proven true; which Religion, happens to be included in, and ‘you’ asininely, refer to this as an “ideology”! Honest truth seekers, and non-believers are not believers in an “ideology”! They merely point out the farce, and evils of accepting absurd assertions as anything other than what they really are; namely, the lies of Criminal charlatans who endlessly ‘PREY’ upon innocent children and fools, and wreak havoc on the rest of World Society!
The branding indoctrination of obsessive robotic religious ‘Godism’ fanatical imberciles, results in the worst sort of bigotry, often causing them to slaughter any who refuse to accept their warped views of the world we live in. And, it is difficult to imagine that anyone could exceed their rabid zealousness to defend their insane conception of life! And, of course, any criticism of their insane ideas, is bound to be met with every sort of lying effort to “discredit the messenger’’ in an attempt to draw observers away from the total inaneness of their own naive and chilldish acceptance of unfounded lies about un-proven assertions, as truth!
With respect to ‘nahida’s apparent infatuation with “Islam”? I find this to be exceptionally strange!
Isn’t it a fact that Muslim ‘women’ are treated like dirt by male Muslims? Aren’t Muslim women required to wear a special costume including a veil over their face? And, aren’t Muslim women forbidden to educate themselves? And, aren’t Muslim forbidden to drive an automobile? And, aren’t Muslim women forbidden to hold a job! And, aren’t Muslim women sometimes murdered by their own family, with full ‘legal’ immunity?
How much intelligence can someone have, lest they are MASOCHISTS, to cause them to WILLINGLY become part of, or, align themselves with, a group of who immediately subjugate them and reduce them in stature to that of a slave, or bonded serf? Need I say more!
You say: “---stop blaming religion(?) and faith for the ills of our world.(?)
I say you’re nuts! RELIGION ‘IS’ RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST ALL THE “ILLS OF THE WORLD”!
I say: Wake up!
Religion is cancer of the mind! Insanity!
You must live in a closet!
Religion is the cause of endless wars in the Middle East, and Ireland! And the cause of the present Iraqi conflict, that has resulted in more than two hundred thousand slaughtered, and ‘mangled’, and millions of homeless and displaced persons! And, Hitler’s Christianity, with the help of the Italian Mussolini, and the Pope in the Vatican was responsible for World War two!
You writelike the religious idiot ‘you’ in fact, are!
Report thisBy Ted Swart, June 24, 2007 at 10:18 am #
Ernest Canning #80930
Thanks Ernest. I am relatively new to TruthDig and I fell into the trap of imagining Jim H to be amenable to being coaxed into a more sensible mode of operation. This is clearly not the case.
Report thisBy Ted Swart, June 24, 2007 at 10:09 am #
BlueBoy1938 #80895
Nice to hear from you BlueBoy. An interesting run down on American history and its idiosyncratic relationship to religion. The US has come a long way (backwards!) since the founding fathers. All the presidential candidates—whether Democrat and Republican are going around loudly proclaiming the important role that religion plays in their lives.
So, when you say “Would we be better off if everyone were atheists?” a partial answer might be: We would surely be much better off if not all US presidential candidates felt it necessary to loudly proclaim that they are not atheists/agnostics/free thinkers.
It is obvious that if all humans became atheists this would not result in paradise. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many others surely attest to the fact that being atheist is no magic antidote to nastiness. I think all rigidly dogmatic systems tend to be corrupt and destructive. And I would go so far as to say that unless atheism is at least tinged with agnosticism it is at risk of being just as dogmatic as religions tends to be.
It is actually a very interesting question as to whether or not having more knowledge tends to make us better people. On balance I would have to say it is much healthier to accept the findings of scientific enquiry rather than to reject what we learn in this manner. It was lunacy on the part of the Catholic Church to persecute Galileo. And the unscientific so-called Creation Science Museums which have been springing up all over the place (even here in Canada) are nothing other than a disgrace.
Report thisBy cann4ing, June 24, 2007 at 9:18 am #
Ted, I long ago learned that there is no possibility whatsoever of carrying on a civil dialogue with Jim H. If you go back to the 3/26/07 Chris Hedges post, “A world where lies are true,” you will find pages and pages of irrational rants by Jim H.
From his lengthy absence, I thought perhaps Jim H had taken the advice of some other Truthdiggers and checked himself in for some extensive psychiatric therapy. But now he’s back, and apparently off his medication.
The best means for dealing with him appears to be to ignore his rants altogether. After a time, he will likely tire of talking to himself and again go away!
Report thisBy nahida, June 24, 2007 at 9:15 am #
Fanaticism and extremism are not exclusive to followers of religion.
Atheists; (as demonstrated quite eloquently and explicitly by some posters here- without having to mention names) can excel as being zealous, obsessive and fanatics, with their behaviour and attitude.
I have actually seen that they can surpass religious zealots by their fervent desire to impose their atheistic ideology upon all, and by their craving to convert the rest of the world and force them to follow their beliefs.
Having said that I guess its only fair that other open-minded atheist should acknowledge this fact and stop blaming religion and faith for the ills of our world.
The blame falls fairly and squarely upon our own shoulders as human beings when we cease to tolerate anything that is different.
Report thisBy Ted Swart, June 24, 2007 at 8:44 am #
Jim H #80795
Okay Jim. You win. I admit defeat in my attempts to hold a meaningful interaction with you. I make a valid point about it being very questionable to suggest that someone with a mental age of 3—even if bigoted-- can be regarded as a hypocrite. And you go off on a tangent about the meaning of the word hypocrisy. It is not the meaning (or meanings) of the word hypocritical on which we differ but rather your whole attitude to the meaning of words. You speak of THE dictionary definition of words as if there is only one dictionary and one rigid meaning which attaches to a given word. The wisdom which attaches to the notion of lying loose to life seems to have escaped you entirely.
I tried to list some of the things on which we do agree—insofar as I can discern them from what you have said—and your reaction is simply to cry: BULLSHIT! Are you not capable of operating without using expletives and gratuitous insults? To suggest that I cannot read is quite simply silly. Ever since I can remember I have always loved dictionaries.
My Oxford English reference dictionary defines an agnostic as follows:
A person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. 2 A person who is uncertain or non-committal about a certain thing.
That is what I would call a sensibly nuanced definition and despite what you say agnostic is the best word at my disposal to categorise where I am at.
Rest assured I will no longer attempt to interact with you. It is not because much of what you say is wrong or untrue but simply because your method of interacting is far too abrasive. You don’t seem to care whether you are interacting with an agnostic or a Muslim or . . . You tend to writeus all off as idiots even when we agree with you.
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, June 24, 2007 at 7:51 am #
Interestingly, “bigot” is said to have come from a Middle French term for a “religious hypocrite.” It may have come from an old insult the French used in referring to the Normans as “Visigoths,” who were in turn referred to in Medieval Latin as “bigoths.” Unfortunately, bigotry is all too often a component of religious fervor. Apparently, it isn’t sufficient for some individuals and groups to realize their own epiphany, they have to shove it down the throats of others. The original thirteen colonies had a variety of religious outlooks. The Puritans in Massachusetts imposed laws that required religious observance of all in the colony, within the Puritan communion, of course. Roger Williams struck out for Rhode Island to set up a tolerant refuge for those persecuted in other places. Remarkably, he founded the American Babtist church, which has become one of the most socially and religiously intolerant denominations in the United States. In mainly Calvinist New Amsterdam, the Quakers were persecuted. Pennsylvania, the “Quaker State,” was the only other tolerant colony besides Rhode Island. Maryland was initially set up as a refuge for Catholics, flirted with an “Act of Tolerance,” and was thrust back into an Anglican intolerance that had given rise to so much of the religious migration to the “New World.” Virginia was Anglican from the start, and Virginians were the first permanent settlers of the Carolinas. Huguenots fled persecution in France into what became South Carolina. Georgia practiced religious tolerance, except towards Catholics. So what eventually became the United States was founded largely by those escaping religious persecution, but who, with notable and partial exceptions, by and large practiced intolerance of other religions. The U. S. Constitution attempted to do away with the strife that brought by providing for freedom of religion, or rather the separation of church and state. That has been interpreted to also apply to those who practice no religion. Unfortunately, even atheists can look bigoted when they go after religious symbols “in the public square,” as it’s so quaintly put. The fact of the matter is that, where religion is concerned, laissez-faire doesn’t work, as everyone goes for the jugular over religious differences. Almost all of the current world conflicts are based at least in part on religious animosities. Would it be better if everyone were atheists? Probably not, as human beings would undoubtedly find something else to fight over.
Report thisBy Jim H., June 23, 2007 at 8:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 80795
Ted Swart
Again I must say: “YOU CANNOT READ!”
And that includes a DICTIONARY!
Or are ‘you’ WRITING YOUR OWN DICTIONARY?
You say: “--- you must surely realize that imbecile moronic bigots cannot possibly be hypocrites.(?)
Read this! (below ) Or better yet, have someone read it to you!
Dictionary
hypocrisy
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.
You say: “---bigots with adequate intelligence are not necessarily hypocrites---"(?)
I had said"---when ‘they’ pretend Peace"-ful co-existance, ‘this’ makes them the worst kind of HYPOCRITES!
Why don’t you have someone you trust read ALL my emails to you? You keep re-definig words and denying the efficacy of my very careful verbiage and statements that you either DO NOT READ! OR CANNOT COMPREHEND! How much did you pay for those DIPLOMAE? You were cheated!
You Say:"---definition of the word agnostic---the difference between do not (currently) know and cannot---” “I am a DO NOT kind of agnostic.”
DICTIONARY
agnostic
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
I had said: “As for Agnostic, the definition seems clear enough? One who cannot decide whether to believe in a Divine First Cause, or whether there ever was a beginning?
I say: Isn’t the definition ‘above’ simple enough even for “you” to understand?
I quote “One who is skeptical about the existence of God”
You say: “I am a DO NOT kind of agnostic.”
Therefore, isn’t it correct to say: because ‘you’ “DO NOT”, you are unable to, or, “cannot ‘decide’ whether to believe in a “Divine” “First Cause, or whether there ever was a beginning”?
Stop trying to change the definitions of DICTIONARY words! Or go dry up!
If you don’t know what you believe or don’t believe, how would you expect someone else to?
And I don’t give a damn!
You talk about differences? First, you don’t know what ‘you’ believe!
Second, you apparently have not the least conception of how serious the ‘Godism’ problem is!
Therefore, you do not realize the THEOCRATS have taken over our US Government, President, Vice President, both houses of Congress, the US Supreme Court, and ‘they’ are in control of ALL the media, Press, Radio, Television, magazine and book Publishing! ‘They’ have infiltrated many of our Public Schools, are denying women medicines, and their rights under the US Constitution. And, there are so many other aatrocities the Religious “Fundamentalists” are guilty of, and inflicting upon American Citizens thet to list all, I would have to skip meals, and sleep, and I am too tired now, to go any further!
Because you are totally numb regarding, all the above, and you h