Arguing for Atheism2. Comment #19217 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm
3. Comment #19219 by 601 on January 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm
...often attributed solely to religion by atheists...
4. Comment #19221 by William on January 25, 2007 at 4:05 pm
"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven..."5. Comment #19222 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 4:06 pm
6. Comment #19224 by diquea on January 25, 2007 at 4:19 pm
"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."7. Comment #19226 by Devolution on January 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm
8. Comment #19228 by Will in Aus on January 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm
9. Comment #19229 by Russell Blackford on January 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm
It's funny how solicitous non-believers like Shermer can be to the sensitivities of their religionist friends, etc. I don't really blame him; I feel some of that solicitousness, too. I have no wish to upset loved ones or colleagues or students. My inner circle of friends are a different matter, since I doubt that there would be a religious thought among them ... but even so ...10. Comment #19230 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It's good to have his criticism, because it helps us make the distinguishing points clearer.11. Comment #19234 by jonecc on January 25, 2007 at 5:13 pm
In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony
12. Comment #19235 by Circumspect on January 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Several good points made here. Shermer is, indeed, being too sensitive about the feelings of religious people who, frankly, will get quite nasty when faced with any serious challenge to their beliefs. I know many and know this first hand. There is the usual standoff... we see it again in the current dialog between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan (check out beliefnet). So, what to do? BTW, the essential problem isn't strictly religion, it is rigid ideology... of which religions just happen to be particularly good examples.13. Comment #19241 by mmurray on January 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm
14. Comment #19242 by Fouad Boussetta on January 25, 2007 at 6:21 pm
15. Comment #19243 by Old Coppernose on January 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers,' no Northern Ireland 'troubles'…." In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.
16. Comment #19259 by Ole on January 26, 2007 at 1:29 am
17. Comment #19272 by Duff on January 26, 2007 at 3:20 am
One can argue that conflicts are not basically religious, but are merely the result of shifting political/geographic tectonic plates. But when one considers religions as the ultimate tribalism, then one really can argue that almost all conflicts are religious in nature.18. Comment #19274 by LookToWindward on January 26, 2007 at 3:31 am
I wouldn't criticise RD for his invective because I think any robust debate needs its pit bulls as well as its poodles (and, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of pit bulls on the other side).19. Comment #19292 by debaser71 on January 26, 2007 at 5:47 am
Sherman is ok but he attacks a strawman when he suggests that atheists think that certain conflicts are ONLY caused by religion. All I like to suggest is that religion plays a role and people should stop denying the role religion plays. Both the bad and the good. What some people refuse is to acknowledge is that people divide themselves based on religious identity. Remove the religion and these people might just be part of the same group. That religion can cause very harsh ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Religion is an artifical division.20. Comment #19294 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 5:58 am
21. Comment #19295 by Johan on January 26, 2007 at 6:07 am
" In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."22. Comment #19296 by anon on January 26, 2007 at 6:17 am
23. Comment #19297 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 6:24 am
Two Atheist Armies would never go to Battle! Pick any battle in history and imagine erasing the minds of the combatants of all religious propaganda and delusions of heaven and virgins. Their own life and that of their loved ones would become instantly precious and the reasons for fighting would not be worth taking a life or giving one. I suspect they would would work out any grievances and live by the "Golden Rule" as it should have always been implemented, not to appease the 'eye in the sky' but as the basic tenet of human respect towards one another. How did the Reilgious ever get to steal the mantle as protectors of life, while subverting it? The only way to achieve that eternal human goal of 'Peace on Earth' is for all its inhabitants to one day be Atheists.24. Comment #19299 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 6:42 am
CDG (23)25. Comment #19309 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 7:21 am
gimlibengoin (24)26. Comment #19311 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 7:31 am
CDG (25)27. Comment #19316 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:53 am
28. Comment #19317 by yesspam on January 26, 2007 at 7:53 am
29. Comment #19318 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 7:58 am
CDG (25)30. Comment #19320 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 8:05 am
Yesspam (28)31. Comment #19322 by Kimpatsu on January 26, 2007 at 8:06 am
32. Comment #19325 by Sam on January 26, 2007 at 8:28 am
33. Comment #19333 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 9:00 am
gimlibengloin (26)34. Comment #19336 by gimlibengloin on January 26, 2007 at 9:06 am
CDG (33)35. Comment #19339 by CDG on January 26, 2007 at 9:21 am
gimloinblog (34)36. Comment #19348 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am
37. Comment #19349 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 10:53 am
38. Comment #19394 by daithelowis on January 26, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I admire Michael Shermer greatly. Was first introduced to him from Penn & Teller Bullshit!. I've since read many of his books, am a member of his Skeptic Society, watched numerous debates of his, and have met him in person. He hosted Dawkins at Cal Tech late last year that I was priveleged to attend.39. Comment #19404 by Jiffy on January 27, 2007 at 12:27 am
"Name me a Humanist who would agree with the views proposed here."
1. Comment #19214 by Sancus on January 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Some least!
I once caught the tail-end of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan in front of Tim Russert (there was never a time when I wished more for a rewind button). Sullivan finished with his usual schtick on how the problem is that people are not separating religion from politics and Hitchens replied plainly, "I'm sorry, Andrew, but you cannot separate religion from politics." Indeed, the separation of church and state does not imply the separation of religion and politics.
Sullivan is wrong, Hitchens is right, and Shermer is underestimating the problem.
Other Comments by Sancus