1. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12888 by Tomboy on December 14, 2006 at 8:04 am

''The atheist alternative is a world in which right and wrong are ultimately matters of opinion'

It's very frustrating seeing people use arguments with the bizarre general structure: if p then q; q is undesirable; therefore p is false. But that's exactly what this berk has done. If it were true that 'the atheist alternative is a world in which right and wrong are ultimately matters of opinion', which it isn't, then unfortunately we'd just have to get on and live in such a world. But the atheist alternative is not like this at all. To the extent that there are natural rights, they presumably exist by virtue of having arisen in human minds by selection for morality. It is religious moral systems that are 'ultimately matters of opinion' as evidenced by the fact that the various systems differ so much. I remember attending a wedding in rural Wales on a Friday afternoon with a group of colleagues, one of whom is a devout orthodox Jew. This poor woman's religious beliefs required that she leave before sundown, be escorted back to her hotel room before the Sabbath began, have the door opened and the light switched on for her (to do it herself would have broken the prohibition on kindling a fire on the Sabbath) and she then to sit in her room like a lemon until Saturday evening when she was allowed to get on a train and leave (to leave earlier would have meant carrying an object more than four cubits). She would have considered breaking any of these taboos immoral. It makes me sick.

'in [the atheist alternative] we are finally accountable to no one but ourselves.'

Well, actually, I think Jacoby will find that if he abandons religion and succumbs to the inevitable temptation to indulge in a spot of good old atheist rape and pillage he'll be accountable to the long arm of the law. But anyway what is so bad about being accountable to ourselves?

2. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11498 by Tomboy on December 5, 2006 at 2:23 am

milkywayinhabitant,

Fundamentalist, like terrorist, is a slippery term, with no stable consensus definition. Is 'state terrorism' a contradiction is terms? Some say yes, others no. The dictionary won't help you. Is 'fundamentalist atheist' a contradiction in terms. Maybe? Aussie says that 'it is difficult to see how atheists could ever be regarded as "fundamentalist" because they do not revere any scripture'. Fair enough, I agree that atheist fundamentalists are rare, but I see plenty of evidence on this website for entirely uncritical reverence for the author of TGD and other atheist heros. Reverence in all its guises is dangerous.

By the way, I don't 'see it like the majority sees it', at least in this regard. I can't abide the uncritical respect in which religious opinion is held. Almost nothing has made me more ashamed of my country than the disgraceful, spineless decision of British newspaper editors not to republish the Mohammed cartoons. I am all for treating contemptible views with contempt.

But you acknowledge that name calling comes off as 'immature and unintelligent'. We can do better than that. After all we are - quite literally - smarter than the opposition. Everyone here will have seen the results of surveys of IQ distribution among atheists and believers and they're not flattering to the latter. Let's win the ARGUMENT, not the shouting match!

Best regards,

Tom (aka Tomboy aka Thomas Mitchell)