Comments by Helian
1. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen
Comment #31971 by Helian on April 15, 2007 at 4:45 am
And it certainly is true that Dawkins puts an exclamation point on godlessness, and good for him. The path we've taken in the past, the cautious avoidance of the scarlet letter of atheism, has not worked. Dawkins represents a different, bolder, more forthright approach — we are staking out a place in the public discourse and openly discussing our concerns, rather than hiding in fear of that old Puritan scowl. We will not go back in the closet.
PZ has it right. If atheists dare to open their mouths at all they can take it for granted they'll be labeled "zealots" and "militants." All we'll get with sedate, supercilious smiles and the "understanding" of the appeasers will be more emasculated science classes. Unless we push back and get in people's faces and maintain a certain edge, we will marginalize ourselves and accomplish nothing.
Comment #31599 by Helian on April 13, 2007 at 12:40 pm
But I digress….. what we're talking about here is the supposed 'danger' of the Christian right….. Like I said before…… danger my ass.
"Incipient theocracy" may be a bit of a stretch, but the last time the Christian right managed to grab serious political power in the US, they put over Prohibition. Drinking "champagne" made out of apple jack and wood alcohol for a dozen years may not be a "danger" in your book, but it's enough to make me sit up and take notice. Let's just say that such antics can be classified as "serious inconveniences."
Comment #31563 by Helian on April 13, 2007 at 9:18 am
For Gods sake!!! Can't we just leave Helian in peace?
Stew, bubble!
But I am keeping my French passport handy, for the day those millenarian religious hypocrite fools realize their master plan.
Sheesh! Once upon a time, when another ravenous and tyrannical oppressor was trying to subject us to their weird "apostolic succession" cult, Lafayette came from France and struck the shackles from our hands at the point of the bayonet! Now, at the first sign of trouble, these poltroons want to go the other way and skedaddle back to France! Thanks a lot, etny! I'll think of you with tears of gratitude running down my cheeks as I'm being frog marched off to Sunday school.
Comment #31433 by Helian on April 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm
@LookToWindward
Now I also make positive generalisations about Americans but I believe my negative ones, if the circumstances are such that I am inclined to make any, are perfectly fair. To call this hatred is nothing short of farcical
Indeed, it is nothing short of farcical. It is also nothing short of farcical that you and so many others keep propping up this strawman, when I have never suggested anything of the sort. Is it really asking too much that you actually read what I wrote? For example, in comment 66 on this thread:
I am not thin-skinned, nor do I object to genuine criticism of my country per se. On the contrary, I welcome it.
I have said the same thing over and over again.
Whatever, I tire of this bickering with my fellow servants of Moloch and Beelzebub, so I will climb down off my soapbox and stuff a sock in it.
This debate reminds me of the classic vignette of an argument between an American and a Brit about their respective countries in the movie, "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." I forget who plays the American, but he goes on with the usual cant about how England would have fallen off the map if we hadn't saved her bacon in WWII, the war debts etc. Terrie Thomas plays the Brit, and, when he gets the upper hand, starts a hilarious rant about the uncivilized Americans, and their obsession with "bosoms."
Comment #31372 by Helian on April 12, 2007 at 7:27 am
@troodon
That aside, I am interested to know your thoughts on the causes of anti-American sentiment in other countries. Do you think that there is any valid justification for this sentiment based on historical events over the past 50 or so years? Or is it just an irrational hate such as "it's just that the US really is evil"?
There cannot be a valid justification for anti-Americanism, any more than there can be a valid justification for racism or anti-Semitism. There are, of course, a host of valid and logically supportable reasons for criticizing the US for its actions over the last 50 years, not to mention in the last five years, or the last year. That, however, is neither here nor there when it comes to assessing whether negative assessments of American actions among the citizens of other countries are justified. What is really relevant is whether they are sufficiently well informed about the US to make any valid judgments about her at all, positive or negative. In the case of the two countries I happen to have watched most closely during the last decade, France and Germany, they certainly are not. The citizens of these two countries are certainly highly educated when compared to the world average, so one would expect them to be more capable of valid, informed judgments than most. However, one would be very sadly mistaken.
Most of the citizens of these countries are grossly and profoundly ignorant regarding the United States. At the same time, they typically consider themselves so well informed that they know far more about America than the Americans. What they really "know" is the propaganda they are fed by their mass media. This propaganda is more uniform, pervasive, and, because it is what the citizens of those countries want to hear, far more effective than anything ever produced in the Communist organs of the past. The political tendencies of the major newspapers, TV stations and other media outlets in these countries vary from far left to moderate to far right, but the picture portrayed of the US is, virtually without exception, a nightmarish fantasy that has nothing to do with reality. The philosophers of the Enlightenment, who had such sanguine hopes about freedom of the press, would have despaired to see it.
People believe what they want to believe. In the current world situation, given the perceived dominant power of the US, it corresponds to the nature of human beings that they will hate America. They do hate America, and that hate is pervasive throughout the world. In Germany, the country I follow most closely, the media have always been a step ahead of popular opinion. With magazines such as Spiegel and Stern in the lead, mass media editors discovered there was big money in feeding the people what they wanted to hear; one-sided, distorted disinformation about America that fed their prejudices. The result is obvious to anyone who cares to open their eyes. There is no "conspiracy," "cabal," or "syndicate" directing this propaganda. It is there because it is profitable. Several influential German media people have admitted precisely that.
For a dose of the enlightened picture of America available in the German "free press," have a look at Davids Medienkritik at
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/
Scroll down, and you will see a collage of Spiegel covers that rival anything that ever appeared in the old East German Communist organ Neues Deutschland. These covers include Bush appearing to give a Hitler salute, several with the favorite German quasi-racist stereotypes of Americans as religious fanatics and wild-eyed gun nuts, US flag-draped cowboy boots resting on or trampling the world, etc. Scroll over to the right and you will see Americans portrayed as blood-sucking parasites and a pair of American flag draped cowboy boots preparing to crush German workers. This sort of vicious propaganda is by no means uncommon. Other commenters have suggested that other countries, too, are subjected to this kind of "criticism." In fact, they are not subjected to this kind of "criticism" throughout the world that is in any way, shape or form on the same scale and mendacity as that directed at the US. Anyone who believes that is willfully blinding themselves to the truth. Anyone who thinks it started with Bush has no clue what they're talking about.
One would think that Dawkins, a student of Tinbergen who should be well aware of the irrational and potentially destructive nature of the out-group association and behavior that is driving anti-American hate, should certainly know better than to feed that hate. He could have written a devastating critique of fundamentalist Christians in the US by simply sticking to the truth. Instead, he has chosen to lard "The God Delusion" with distortions, patently false information that he was too negligent to fact check, and quasi-racist stereotypes that feed anti-American hate. He is, therefore, objectively an anti-American, whether he chooses to consider himself one or not. As an anti-American, he has alienated me, an American atheist with every reason to support and defend him. That does not seem, to me, to be an effective tactic in our common fight to defeat religious obscurantism.
@briancoughlanworldcitizen
Guys, in many other respects, Helian is a sound sensible chap. However, he has an aggravating and irrational blind spot with regard to criticism of the US, characterising any hint of it as rabid demagogoury.
Note, oh great movie director, that I did not "unilaterally" break the prevailing cease-fire, but was sorely provoked. The claims of my opponents on this thread that my comments constitute "torture," in violation of international law, are also greatly exaggerated.
Comment #31175 by Helian on April 11, 2007 at 9:04 am
from your posts, it would seem that everyone who criticises the current Federal government or the (other) right-wing Christian fundamentalist activists at large in the U.S. is automatically "Anti-American" in your opinion
Another data point for the afficionados. ;-)
Comment #31165 by Helian on April 11, 2007 at 8:45 am
The reference to the taliban is simply to nail the point that these idiots on their moralistic crusade are no different than idiots in the taliban.
Right, and, as long as you're cool with the reductio ad Talibanum, why not reach for the hard stuff and go right for the reductio ad Hitlerum? Don't let a little thing like Godwin's Law stand in your way.
Comment #31153 by Helian on April 11, 2007 at 7:15 am
The most anti-American people I know are the neo-cons in the White House that harm the American people (private health care, poor education, increasing the gap between rich & poor, increasing the threat of terror, out-of-control military spending, exempting themselves from the international community, etc).
Another data point for the interested reader. Note the disregard for anything I actually said, and the determination, somehow, by hook or by crook, to steer the debate back to the items in their big dossier of American evils.
Comment #31148 by Helian on April 11, 2007 at 6:44 am
@troodon
To think I'd be labelled anti-American because of my dislike for current U.S. politics, religion and foreign policy is a bit insulting. If I were to make a list of people (both living and dead) that I most respect, Americans would be well represented.
It is also a bit insulting to claim that I label people anti-American because of their dislike for current U.S. politics, religion, and foreign policy. In fact, it's a strawman argument that flies in the face of virtually every post I've made on the subject on this site. In addition to feeling a bit insulted, I also feel a bit saddened that so many people of all ideological stripes in today's world seem incapable of addressing the arguments their opponents have actually made, but begin any debate with a furious rush for the "moral high ground" where they can strike pious poses and preach that their opponents aren't quite up to their level when it comes to moral purity. It's particularly incongruous, not to mention grotesque, for atheists to try the same gambit.
If you'll actually take the time to read my comments, you'll find that I reiterate over and over again that I have no problem with legitimate criticism of the US, and certainly not of the Bush Administration. In fact, I welcome it and consider it necessary. There is an unmistakable difference, however, between legitimate criticism and propaganda. Legitimate criticism respects the truth, and does not ignore or, for that matter, show ignorance of, both sides of an argument. It seems the rationalizers and apologists for anti-American hate just can't let go of this hackneyed old chestnut. Any anti-American propaganda, no matter how venomous, is automatically "objective criticism," and, if anyone objects to it, they are just too sensitive to the "criticism." They feel no obligation whatsoever to respond to the charge that the propaganda is not true, or selectively winnows facts to bolster some ideological dogma. If seriously challenged, they just hop on to the next propaganda slogan in their dossier and take it from there.
In the case of "The God Delusion," there are some inconvenient facts that fly in the face of the "objective criticism" canard, and those facts won't disappear by virtue of much bleating forth of the same discredited argument. The facts are that Dawkins has recklessly misquoted a US government official, that he has falsely and rather hysterically claimed that the US is an "incipient theocracy," and that, not just once, but over and over again, he identifies US Christian fundamentalists with the Taliban, a comparison that flies in the face of reality. Dawkins could have made a damning case against religious zealots in the US by simply sticking to the facts. Instead, he chose to rely on distortions that have no basis in reality, but are entirely familiar and commonplace items in the ideological baggage of anti-American zealots.
Okay, which camp of alternative voices do you advocate? Are you supportive of human rights and strong environmental protection around the world - even when these goals might conflict with Exxon profits?
Thus speaks the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh. His position is precisely the same. The truth doesn't matter. Balance doesn't matter. If you do not agree with him on any of the items that make up the ideological box he lives in, why, then, you must be a "liberal," someone not in his conservative in-group, but in the evil, immoral, impure out-group. Troodon's all to human thought processes are identical. If I do agree with him on any of the items that make up the "progressive" ideological box he lives in, why then, I must be a "conservative" a "Bushie," an evil denizen of his out-group. He insists that I choose which "camp" I belong to, because, for him and other ideologues like him, it is inconceivable that human beings can have any intellectual existence outside of a "camp."
Yes, the U.S. can reverse the anti-American feeling around the world. But it will require re-defining its place internationally - especially with foreign policy, human rights and the environment. Respect is earned, not forced by F-16's.
You see, it's not that troodon is anti-American. It's just that the US really is evil.
10. Is God poison?
Comment #31026 by Helian on April 10, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Opining about a complicated psychological phenomenon such as denial, without having met or directly interviewed the subject, is a quick way to relinquish credibility.
Denial may be a complicated psychological phenomenon for people whose tastes run to complicated psychological phenomenon. It is also a word in the vernacular which is quite understandable to most people. In this case, it means someone who quite palpably is something that he denies he is, and is not aware he is. The fact that there are also very rigorous scientific definitions for terms such as "work," "power," and "energy" does not mean those terms cannot also be quite useful to people who happen not to be physicists.
Your examples, however, are of historical events about which the truth is difficult to glean even for people who devote themselves full-time to the task.
Nonsense. Which historical events are you referring to? The 2000 election? The results of the complete recount in Florida were widely published as soon as they became available, and continue to be openly available to anyone who will look. It is an easily ascertainable, uncomplicated fact that Bush would have won the election for any scenario suggested or demanded by the Democrats.
We've heard your hypothesis about why misunderstandings might be held: anti-Americanism. Here's an alternative hypothesis: these issues are confusing as hell and clouded by a nearly incomprehensible amount of erroneous information from countless perspectives.
Also nonsense. There is nothing confusing about Prof. Dawkins' perception of the United States. It is entirely typical, not of an opinion informed from "countless perspectives" but of one informed by the propaganda of dogmatic ideologues. There is nothing "confusing" about the distorted version of America portrayed in "The God Delusion." It is simply and palpably wrong. Reagan's Secretary of the Interior did not, in fact, make the statement attributed to him, the United States is not, in fact, and "incipient theocracy," and American Christian fundamentalists are not just like the Taliban.
As for anti-Americanism, there is nothing surprising about its emergence given the current perception of the US as the "one remaining superpower." Given the nature of human beings, the emergence of the United States as an international out-group is, perhaps, not quite as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning, but virtually so. The phenomenon of anti-Americanism is not difficult to study or observe. Huge numbers of people worldwide are obsessed with the United States, to the point that they sometimes become indifferent to what is going on in their own countries. They collect huge dossiers of the "sins" of America, without any serious attempt to really inform themselves about the related facts. All this is certainly no secret to the editors of the German mass media, which I happen to have followed for some time. With publications such as Spiegel and Stern in the vanguard, long before Bush ever became President, they began to notice there was big money to be made selling hate, and began throwing red meat to the haters in the form of tendentious, one-sided articles that relentlessly emphasized the negative. Publications such as Focus and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, relatively conservative venues and formerly more or less friendly to the US, quickly scented the money trail and fell into line. The same phenomenon can be observed worldwide.
The fact that anti-Americans are unaware and deny that they are anti-American is also not surprising. To them, after all, the US is the out-group, the evil enemy. In fighting the evil enemy, they are supporting a noble cause. The out-group is relentlessly described as a vile monster, identified with the most horrific criminals, as, for example, in Prof. Dawkins' case, the Taliban. If Prof. Dawkins were not anti-American but merely taking an understandably polemic attitude towards fundamentalist Christians, he would describe all fundamentalist Christians in the same terms. He does not. He reserves his particular ire, distorted version of reality, and repeated, constant, and ludicrous association of Christian fundamentalists with the Taliban to the United States.
Think about that old chestnut, one of the most dishonest disguisting arguments that some theists use against atheists, that is to say, that atheists disbelieve in god because atheists hate god. Consider how incorrect and offensive that dishonest line of arguing is.
I have considered how incorrect and offensive that dishonest line of arguing is, and must certainly agree. However, it bears no resemblance to anything I ever said or implied.
This melting of these two independant concepts leads to very acidic, nasty ad-hominem slander of atheists.
and
If you want to debate claims about what happened, or you want to prove someone wrong about it, you can do that without lying about their intent, as you have done here.
I leave Steven Mading's pious remarks regarding "ad hominem attacks" without further comment.
But if you are right that the Bush quasi theocracy is indeed the democratic choice of the people, does it indicate an even more serious flaw about American culture and society than Dawkins alleged American bashing would imply?
I leave this comment as a data point for students of the general phenomenon of anti-Americanism.
11. Is God poison?
Comment #30940 by Helian on April 10, 2007 at 11:57 am
@Richard Dawkins
Please please, don't ever accuse me of anti-Americanism. It is mainly because of my love of America that I, along with all my many American friends, loathe and detest Bush and the damage he has done to that great republic. I don't remember saying "Americans can't see it" but, if I did, I obviously meant some Americans can't see it – enough Americans to have elected him President (with a little help from his brother's friends in Florida and his father's friends in the Supreme Court).
With all due respect, as one atheist to another, I cannot comply with your wish to refrain from accusing you of anti-Americanism. I can only represent my own opinion. That opinion is that you are, indeed, an anti-American, although you may be in denial about it. The evidence is plain enough in "The God Delusion." Your judgment fails you when you speak of America. You attributed a quote to Reagan's Secretary of the Interior that he never made without fact checking it, even though it was so over the top it was palpably suspect. You repeatedly associated fundamentalist Christians in the US with the Taliban when the facts do not support that association. You claimed that America was an "incipient theocracy," betraying an opinion of her that is not informed by any grasp of reality, but is apparently informed by uncritical acceptance of the propaganda of ideologues who are very definitely anti-American.
The perception that you are relying for your "facts" about the US on the opinions of ideologues rather than a balanced assessment of information from different points of view is reinforced by MorituriMax's observation later in this thread that the outcome of the 2000 election would not have been altered, either by the President's friends in Florida or the Supreme Court, even if the Democrats had conducted a recount precisely according to their wishes. You ignore the fact that it was the Supreme Court of Florida, dominated by Democrats, that made the first serious attempt by the judiciary branch of our government to intervene in the election, not the Supreme Court. If they had had their way, it could have been perceived by Bush's friends as a coup d'etat by the courts with at least as much reason as the actual outcome was portrayed as due to the intervention of the Supreme Court, which it was not. Indeed, that is the reason for the reticence of many of us to approve of judicial interference in elections except in the most obvious instances of fraud. The outcome of the 2004 election did not necessarily result from the fact that "some Americans can't see it" about Bush. I suspect it had, in many cases, a great deal more to do with their aversion for Kerry than any affection for Bush. Again, the reasons that "some British can't see it" is probably due to their excessive reliance on the BBC and similar sources for their "news" about America.
I am certainly no friend of Bush. He has done great damage to my country. He has condoned torture, suspension of habeus corpus, and a general dismantling of the rights we treasure in the name of "security." He is, of course, also extreme in his religious beliefs, and in his efforts to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state. That being said, he is also the biggest fig leaf for anti-Americanism on the world stage today. I have followed the evolution of anti-American propaganda in the German media. It was a great deal more violent and hateful under Clinton than it is now under Bush, in spite of the "fig leaf." It is now considerably more subdued because the Germans are aware that some of their American "friends" are watching them. Anti-American hate is real, and will not disappear when Bush is gone, regardless of who becomes President.
You claim you are not really anti-American. Good, then rely for your information on my country, not just on hide-bound leftist ideologues, but also on the many strong voices in my country representing alternative points of view. You may not enjoy it, but they will present you with an alternate view of reality from the one you are comfortable with, and one that, at least in some instances, corresponds more closely to the facts, as, for example, in the case of your interpretation of the 2000 election. If you are not anti-American, great, but be aware that anti-Americanism is not a rare phenomenon in today's world. Under the circumstances, it seems reasonable to be somewhat circumspect about repeating propaganda slogans equating US Christian fundamentalists with the Taliban, etc. The reality of religious fanaticism in the US provides an ample field for genuine criticism of a friend, which, it seems to me, is easy enough for rational human beings to distinguish from hate-mongering propaganda.
As an American atheist, I have every reason to support you and your cause. I am not thin-skinned, nor do I object to genuine criticism of my country per se. On the contrary, I welcome it. I would not lightly presume to seem to lecture someone who has contributed incomparably more to the cause of liberty of conscience than I have. Unfortunately, it happens I feel very strongly about this. It seems reasonable to me that, in the interest of a cause we both support, you would refrain from gratuitously alienating people like me, who have always been on your side and defended you from your detractors. All I ask is that, in your criticism of America, you stick to the facts. They will speak for themselves, without exaggeration, as long as they are not carefully "weeded out" to conform to some ideological dogma.
I note that you have requested that your critics identify themselves in the past. I am Douglas Drake of Boyds, Maryland, near Germantown. My information was in the phone book the last time I looked.
Comment #30914 by Helian on April 10, 2007 at 9:52 am
@Donald
I assume Helian meant there is no logical basis for an absolute meaning for "good".
Yes, although perhaps "objective" would be a better word than "absolute." "Good" and "bad" are subjective perceptions. They provide us with a context with which to judge and react to our own actions and those of other human beings. The fact that they only exist subjectively, in our minds, does not make them seem any less real to us, or, if you will absolute. Atheists, including myself, have a predisposition to perceive "good" and "bad" just as absolutely as anyone else. We experience irrational feelings of anger and outrage at actions we consider "immoral," and we experience equally irrational feelings of approval or adulation at actions we perceive as exceptionally "good." However, there is no logical basis for considering anything "good" or "bad," because, as mentioned above, these categories have no objective existence.
To me the answer is that the morality of human actions is derived from its effect on other humans. A human action is moral or immoral according to whether it is beneficial or detrimental to other humans.
You say you understand what I'm saying, and yet here you go strolling with wide open eyes right off a logical cliff. There is no logical reason for assigning some kind of objective legitimacy to your perceptions of good and bad because they happen to affect human beings one way or another. In the first place, it seems to me the wiring of the human brain for distinguishing good from evil is a great deal more complex than that. Since morality is subjective, there is really no other way of judging this contention of yours than to study human behavior and the perceptions of other human beings and determine if, as a rule, other human beings would usually agree with you. In fact, they would not. They might agree that, in general, your rule applies to their in-group, but, even here, there are exceptions. Human beings are quite capable of hating other individuals in their in-group if, for example, they steal from them, constantly try to assume a higher rank order than them, etc. They can even thirst for vengeance against others in their in-group for their "evil" deeds. Hate and the desire for vengeance have a subjective existence every bit as "real" as our perceptions of good and evil. These "negative" emotions and desires are there for a reason; the very same reason, in fact, for the existence of perceptions of good and evil. They have promoted our genetic survival. There is no reason to consider them any less "intrinsically" good, or "unworthy" than any "higher good."
When it comes to out-groups, the situation becomes even more cloudy. Depending on the in-group to which we belong, we can hate the Jews, blacks, capitalists, Christians, Moslems, or whatever, and desire their destruction or hope that some other evil befalls them for no other reason than the perception that they belong to the out-group. There is no objective reason why such perceptions are "really" bad. Again, at one point in our existence they promoted our survival.
We act morally because that is our nature. We "feel" the difference between good and bad because that is how our brains our wired. What we perceive as "good" and "bad" is surprisingly constant across human cultures, ideologies and religions, as Voltaire and many other great thinkers have pointed out. In this sense, atheists are just as "moral" and "good" as Christians, Moslems, or anyone else, because they are human beings, and that is their nature as human beings. Holy books and ideological "sacred scriptures" such as "Das Kapital," or "Mein Kampf" can have an affect on our moral perceptions by, for example, identifying outgroups (capitalists, the Jews, etc.) but they don't change the general nature of moral behavior itself. This is most obvious in instances when they conflict with human nature. Are Christians any less judgmental, for example, because the Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged?" Is the average televangelist "humble," "meek," or "poor in spirit?" The slaughter of the Crusades, the butchery of upwards of a million innocent women as "witches," the persistent massacre of "heretics," etc., hardly support the claim that religious believers are "more moral" than atheists, at least in terms of the most prevalent notions of "good" and "bad" in our time.
In a word, we don't need to go off on a wild goose chase to find the holy grail of the "real good" or the "real evil." Human beings will act as they act and their nature will remain their nature regardless. Rather, we must ask ourselves, why is our predisposition to morality there to begin with? The answer is obvious. It is there for the same reason that our eyes, ears, fingers, toes, sexual desire, and ability to experience pain are there to begin with. It has helped us to survive. Well, ought we to survive? Is survival itself the real, objective good, the good in itself? No, survival is no more a good in itself than any other good. Still, it works for me. After all, everything about me is there because it has helped me to survive. If I fail to survive genetically, then I am, or, at least, I perceive myself as a failed "biological unit." I "want" to survive. I can justify, at least to myself, the "good" of survival.
If, then, our morality is not the good in itself, but is merely there to serve that good, should we accept our perceptions of it unconditionally as thinking, rational beings? Certainly not! If we accept survival as our ultimate good, it would be very rash to do so. After all, our moral sense evolved at a time when external conditions were radically different than they are now. We associated in much smaller groups. We tended to be genetically related to the other members of our group. The weapons we carried, if we had weapons at all, were infinitely less destructive than the weapons we now are capable of wielding.
In some cases, we have already managed to perceive that our "moral" behavior is seriously out of step with the reality of the world we live in. We have responded by attempting to modify it by creating new "goods" and "evils." Having experienced the mayhem of two world wars, we respond by elevating pacifism to a "good." Having experienced the Holocaust, we respond by condemning anti-Semitism as an evil. Having experienced the gross exploitation of workers that accompanied the industrial revolution, we respond by categorizing the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie, as an out-group, the personification of evil. These are palliatives. They do not address the root of the problems, the nature of the irrational tendencies that cause them in the first place. Because they are not based on a real understanding of the problem, the "solutions" can blow up in our faces. Identifying the "bourgeoisie" as an out-group, for example, resulted in the mass slaughter of innocents under the tyranny of Communism. We can "outlaw" hatred of the old out-groups, the Jews, the bourgeoisie, the Catholics, the atheists, etc., one by one, but new ones will always emerge to take their places. New ones certainly have emerged, and continue to emerge, in the ideological vacuum left by the demise of Communism. I won't bother to point them out, because it would be more likely to enrage you than to inform you. After all, we are standing too close to today's out-groups. We "feel" that we really are justified in hating them. Atheists have often been associated by their enemies on the right with "progressive" ideology. There is more than a grain of truth in this, although it certainly doesn't apply to all atheists. Want to know the identity of the "new" out-groups. Just read the literature of the "progressive" dogmatists, and you will find them if you have an open mind.
What is to be done? We need to understand ourselves. In particular, we need to better understand the nature of morality. We will gain that understanding, if the progress of human knowledge is not impeded by the obscurantists of the ideological left or the religious right. Once we "know" then it will be a matter of putting two and two together.
13. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity
Comment #30873 by Helian on April 10, 2007 at 7:53 am
I know that!!! Hence MY video that I made MYSELF. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYp24x_0Uo
Alas, I'm sitting at a computer without volume at the moment (that's why I popped off about Stalin without seeing the video first), but the video part is great. I'll watch it in all its glory with audio later today. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. If our local school board ever gets any ideas about teaching intelligent design, I'll insist your video be included in the lesson plan. ;-)
14. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity
Comment #30821 by Helian on April 10, 2007 at 2:00 am
It was a lot of fun and that "Stalin was an atheist and he killed lots of people meme" has been driving me nuts for the last few months at least.
Stalin wasn't really an atheist, Brian. He was a true believer in a religion, Marxism, that just happened not to include a God. The religion even came complete with its own Saint Paul, Engels. I suggest, if it really bothers you so much, that you read some of Stalin's works. You will find they have a very distinct ring of religious liturgies.
15. Praying for the Apocalypse
Comment #30706 by Helian on April 9, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The tawdry display of cheap consumer goods, emblazoned with neon, lines both sides of the road, a dirty brown strip in the middle. It is a sad reminder that something has gone terribly wrong with America, with its inhuman disregard for beauty and balance, its obsession with speed and utilitarianism, its crass commercialism and its oversized SUVs and trucks and greasy junk food. It is part of our numbing assault against community and connectedness.
Funny, I used to live near South Telegraph, and I never had all these apocalyptic visions while I was driving down it. I guess I'm just insensitive. Next time the dude should try 275 south.
The theology of despair is empowered by global warming? Hmmm, any links to document that? If guys like this take over, you can forget it the next time you have a hankering for a nice, greasy, Big Mac.
It condemns self-criticism and debate as apostasy.
I assume this implies that self-criticism and debate are still not verboten for atheists? In that case, allow me to suggest that this guy strikes me as being at least as messianic, fanatical, and ideologically fossilized in his thinking as the Christian rightists he condemns. As an atheist, I can only say with all due diffidence, "Give us Barrabas! (er, Pastor LaHaye)" I prefer the devil whose tyranny I'm familiar with and know how to fight to the devil I haven't yet had to deal with, but whose plans for South Telegraph seem to me a bit over the top.
16. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity
Comment #30660 by Helian on April 9, 2007 at 8:53 am
@BicycleRepairMan
So in order to counter islam, I ought to indoctrinate my children (if I get any) with something I dont personally believe in more than I believe in santa? I see…
I agree, that's really the essence of the article. According to the author, it doesn't matter if our beliefs are lies if they happen to be useful lies. What a heroic view of humanity! We must all be sheltered from the truth and indoctrinated with lies because the lies promote our "welfare."
@briancoughlanworldcitizen
It was one of the most remarkable occurrences in history. Primitive tribesmen surged forth from the Arabian peninsula. Within 100 years, they had defeated the Byzantine and Persian empires. Only Charles Martel prevented them from overrunning Western Europe.
Sounds like the same pap trotted out about the success of Christianity, or SNAP Communism. My how it spread, with what speed and how we feared the domino effect.
Not to mention the fact that Anderson's "history" is complete BS. The inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula in the 6th and 7th centuries were not "primitive tribesmen." They had, in fact, been formidable to their neighbors for centuries. Charles Martel defeated the Moslems in one battle, which was, indeed, important, but has gained historical notoriety far transcending its real importance. It is certainly untrue that "only" he prevented them from overrunning Western Europe. It is highly likely, BTW, that the lion's share of the soldiers who made up Martel's "wall of ice" that stemmed the Moslem tide were probably pagans, not Christians. Bowdlerization of history seems to be another example of Anderson's contempt for the truth.
@Jeff D
So "thoughtful atheism" is an atheism leavened with self-doubt? Self-doubt is a virtue when one is thinking and speaking about superstitious, unverifable, unfalsifiable ideas for which there is no credible evidence. I don't think self-doubt is a virtue in atheists, but a little humility (I don't know what I don't know) is.
Dawkins' atheism is not thoughtful? Well, I must admit, it isn't rocket science. I would rank the complexity of the ideas on religion expressed in "The God Delusion" on a par with a first year algebra textbook. The arguments are pretty much all self-evident, and, it seems to me, have occurred naturally or must be easily understandable to anyone really capable of honestly challenging religious beliefs in their own mind. I must assume that most of Dawkins' critics, based on the content of their criticism, have never actually read his books. Regardless of whether Dawkins is sufficiently "thoughtful" to suit Anderson, "The God Delusion" addresses and demolishes every significant argument in favor of religion the theists have proposed before or since. In that sense, it is certainly comprehensive for a work of its kind. Apparently, in the mind of a theist, "thoughtful" means failing to actually address the arguments of your opponent.
So "thoughtful atheism" is an atheism leavened with self-doubt? Self-doubt is a virtue when one is thinking and speaking about superstitious, unverifable, unfalsifiable ideas for which there is no credible evidence. I don't think self-doubt is a virtue in atheists, but a little humility (I don't know what I don't know) is.
Indeed! The assignment of a high cultural value to individual liberty in the West is not a coincidence, and it has nothing to do with the spread of Christianity. Quite the contrary, in fact. Thoughtful historians have been aware of and remarked this fact for at least the last 250 years.
@Patrick McArdle
As another commenter here recently wrote, of another pile of theistic nonsense, we rarely see a theist admit his moral cowardice in such stark terms.
Yes, this cowardice is at the heart of the power of religion over the minds of human beings, and is probably the greatest poisoner of lives in our history as a species. It is also an expression of incredible arrogance. "I am so important that God must have a personal relationship with me, and I must live forever!" Earthly existence is a "vail of tears." In other words, spoil the joy of living worrying about a nonexistent afterlife. In a sense, the theists have it right. It would be absurd if creatures as complex as us simply popped into existence and then died without a trace. It begs the question of who "we" really are. What is not mortal and transient about us? That is the real "us." It is the genetic material we carry, which has been alive for the last three billion years or so, and is, potentially, immortal. What we perceive as "me" is simply a consciousness created by the genetic material because that consciousness has promoted its survival in the past. "I" just happen to be along for the ride. Great! What an astonishing, improbable opportunity. Does it really make sense not to enjoy the ride out of a grossly inflated perception of my own significance? Do I really need to "believe" a religious fantasy because I am such a coward I cannot accept the truth that I will die?
@denoir
In the long run the goal is to make the tolerant secular majority to realize that tolerance should not include tolerance to intolerance. We should also make them realize that enlightenment values are indeed a set of values and not just 'anything goes' because they are liberal. Once we've accomplished that, we can deal with the native "faith-heads".
In the short run however an 'unholy' alliance with the Christians may be an ugly but practical solution.
I think you have really hit the nail on the head. There is nothing more immoral than failing to survive, and, if our tolerance destroys us, then there is nothing "good" about it.
I have just finished reading a short history of the Montenegrins. They were a small tribe of Christian Serbs who retreated to their mountain fastnesses after the defeat of Greater Serbia on the field of Kosovo in 1389. There they defended their small enclave, about 60 miles long and 30 miles wide for centuries, maintaining a de facto independent state in spite of more than 40 Turkish campaigns to wipe them out, bidding defiance to anything the Turks could throw at them. They had few material resources, and their population through the 19th century probably averaged no more than 100 to 150 thousand.
In contrast, the "enlightened" West, with unparalleled wealth and power and populations running into the hundreds of millions is everywhere in retreat, presenting everywhere an aspect of demoralization, cowardice, and so much respect for "multi-cultural values" it is unable to defend itself or the principles of the Enlightenment it has inherited from a nobler past. Somehow, without losing our ability to think, without becoming fanatics ourselves, we atheists, in common with anyone else who is willing to defend the secular state, must acquire something of the spirit of the Montenegrins. At some point we, too, must be prepared to stand and fight.
Comment #30041 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 10:22 am
From here, the solution is simple (to articulate!!), extend the ingroup to everyone. Global laws equally impinging on a global people, legislate "do unto others" into binding global law.
Seems like an attractive solution on the face of it, if only it were as easy to realize as to articulate. However, it really just substitutes new "goods" (peace, comfort, agreeable and pleasant lives) for the old "goods." The only "real" good I will agree to is our genetic survival, and (I know), even that isn't unquestionably, objectively, "really" good. Close enough for me, though.
18. The God Debate
Comment #30036 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 10:00 am
So no, from my objective view, I'm as frightened of being sent to hell by Jesus, as I am of being sent there by Allah, Jehovah or Thor.
Christians should be shaking in their boots. The Koran very explicitly says that the vast majority of them who happen to believe in the trinity are idolators who will fry in hell forever.
Comment #30034 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 9:53 am
Ok - Human suffering is "bad."
Your turn.
No, it's not my turn. It won't be my turn until you explain why human suffering really is bad. What is the basis for your claim that human suffering is bad? Moslems would not make that claim. They would maintain that, at least in some cases, incredible human suffering of infinite duration in hell is "good," because it is God's will, and God's will cannot be "bad." Nazis would claim that the human suffering of Jews is "good." What basis do you have for the claim that you are right, but they are wrong?
This is not just a sterile intellectual exercise. Every bit of what we consider "good" is conditioned by an evolutionary past that no longer exists. In some cases, we have already discovered this to our cost, and tried to find solutions. We have countered the Nazi "good" of inflicting human suffering on the Jews by defining the "bad" of anti-Semitism. We have countered the white supremicist "good" of inflicting human suffering on blacks by defining the "bad" of racism. These are appropriate reactions, but they are half measures. We must uncover the underlying behavioral traits that lead to these "bads" and understand them. Otherwise the "bads" will only emerge again in different forms, slipping through our fingers like Jello as we try to squeeze them and hold them in check.
We no longer live in small groups of hunter-gatherers surrounded by similar groups, yet our human nature evolved at a time when we did. It has not caught up. We must devote some very serious thought to what parts of it still have some survival value, and what parts do not, and may, in fact, actually threaten our survival under the new "civilized" circumstances in which we find ourselves. Aspects of our behavior that threaten our survival must be identified, understood, segregated, and controlled. We need to reevaluate "good" and "bad" in terms of what really does promote our survival, rather than what we are comfortable with, or what feels good.
Comment #30029 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 9:07 am
@sane1
I suppose on some level you are right. Without defining the terms, thay are meaningless. As in, there is no logical basis for considering the color white to be the term "white."
"White" is entirely different from "good and bad," because it has an objective reality independent of the human brain. It corresponds to a band of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Subtract all life forms from the universe, and the photons that make up "white" will still be there. Not so with "good and bad."
Similarly, (and maybe we do agree here) good needs to be defined, and bad needs to be defined."
It's not a question of definition. You can define them however you like. What you can't do is ever demonstrate why we really ought to do "good" and really out not to do "bad." You can emit, absorb, scatter, and refract white light, and otherwise demonstrate that there is a real thing behind your definition that can be probed with repeatable experiments. However, you can never provide an objective reason why one thing is good and another bad.
You objected to my arguments when I appeared on this blog. In other words, you "felt" that what I said was "not good." Your comments demonstrate your belief that your version of the "good" should apply to me. Why? What reason do you have for suggesting that I "ought" to do anything at all? This isn't just intellectual spinning of cobwebs. It's at the very basis of everything we think and do. Atheist "moralists" and "ethicists" are walking on air. They don't seem to realize there's no terra firma under their feet whatsoever, in the form of any rhyme or reason for their value judgments. Most atheists are very opinionated when it comes to deciding what is "good." Why? They have no rational basis whatsoever for making that judgment.
It seems to me that, in the end, we must pare things down to the most fundamental level when it comes to morality. Our innate predispositions to morality exist because they have promoted our survival. At the most fundamental level, then, "good" is what promotes our genetic survival, and there can be nothing more "immoral" than failing to survive. I cannot, logically, accept any other form of "good," whether conservative, progressive, religious, or otherwise. Getting down to cases, this applies to Dawkins' "moral Zeitgeist," and to Pinker's "kinder, gentler morality" as much as it does to a Christian religious fanatic trying to stuff his version of morality down my throat.
We could debate on a 100% rational basis what is good and what is bad.
Be my guest. Go ahead and try. You'll have no more luck than Socrates' Euthyphro (www.friesian.com/euthyph.htm).
Comment #30023 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 8:37 am
@severalspeciesof
"That hesitation tells me that the theist in this debate is trying very hard to avoid the idea that his belief is actually predicated on the notion of eternal torment, rather than the idea of that he loves god. Anyone else catch that?"
The hesitation was definitely there. It's not surprising. Think about it. A "loving" "merciful" God creates beings, knowing in advance what their fate will be. His intellect is as comparable to theirs as a human's intellect is to an amoeba. Still, he becomes so "angry" at the amoeba for the paltry "sins" they commit on earth that he will burn them for trillions and trillions of years. The "benevolent" God of the Koran is even more explicit about this than the Christian God. We are informed in great detail how, as each old skin burns away, a new one will be created in its place through all eternity to insure that the victim's senses aren't dulled to the torture. The "loving" Christian fundamentalists have not the slightest objection to this indescribably horrific torture of amoeba by their "just" God as long as they, themselves escape.
Comment #30016 by Helian on April 6, 2007 at 7:27 am
@Relevo
"Helian, if ever you come across this kind of atheistic individual, why don't you actually point out to him/her how exactly it is that this person is being fundamentalist, and in what sense exactly."
I have already done this in the series of comments I left on the "Richard Dawkins explains 'The God Delusion'" thread. The individual I identified was Prof. Dawkins himself, and my reasons for doing so can be found in the comments on that thread and the associated links. I made my point on that thread, and stand by it. I no longer have any interest in belaboring the point on this site, perhaps because of my own "irrational" aversion to "heresy" and "factionalism" among my fellow atheists, my "irrational" revulsion at seeing RD struck below the belt by his opponents, not to mention my continuing admiration for a man who, while he may not be perfect, has done a lot more to make this world a better place than I have.
"What is the fundamentalist dogma you are noticing from such a person? Otherwise, you are simply lobbing a word around with no real sense for its meaning."
I have a much less sanguine view of the rationality of human beings than you do, Relevo. I believe that the thought, opinions, and perceptions of most people are not the product of rational, critical, logical thought processes, but are ideological constructs associated with our morality, our sense of right and wrong, which, in turn, exists because human beings have an innate predisposition, hard-wired in their brains, to acquire a morality, more or less conditioned by their indoctrination and other environmental factors, but with certain cross-cultural similarities. The evidence for this is all around you, even on this site, where thinkers congregate who are generally more thoughtful, individualistic in matters of opinion, and more resistant to dogmatic beliefs than most people. Read through a few of the threads, and you will constantly find judgments conditioned by morality. One thing is "good," another "disgusting," another "selfish," another "despicable," another "outrageous," and so on. None of these judgments are logical, because none of these categories have an objective existence. They are all subjective human moral constructs, with no "real" existence outside of the human brain, but, nevertheless, perceived as absolutes. Nevertheless, we all "know" what these people are talking about, because our brains are wired to perceive the world in exactly the same way. I am a human being, and I, too, have the tendency to see the world in that way, with the same tendency to perceive my own moral judgments as absolutes. Indeed, the only reason we don't perceive these things for what they are is because they are so much a part of us we take them for granted. We are standing too close to ourselves to see them.
"Instead of simply mislabeling people, why don't you actually point out the specific irrational doctrinal text/manual/bible/whatever fundamentalist creed- with which such an individual is being fundamentalist? Surely, you must realize doing so is the honest thing to do."
Visit some of the atheist websites linked on this site. You will note, if you visit a sufficient sample of them, a marked tendency to associate a "progressive" ideology with atheism. The set of opinions that mark the ideological boundaries of the "progressive" world view are, more or less, in flux. They have this in common with many other ideological complexes, including religions. However, in many cases, those ideological boundaries are strongly marked. The related opinions are usually associated with each other. Of we know someone is a "progressive," we will know what he thinks on a variety of hot button issue, just as we know what a "conservative" will think. That is not a coincidence. We all have a marked aversion to wandering outside the well-marked boundaries of our ideological "in-groups," and associate all kinds of evil with those in the "other" ideological "out-groups." This certainly corresponds to human nature. It is, however, not rational. There is no logical basis whatsoever for considering one thing "good" and another "bad."
Does that mean we should constantly fight against our innate tendency to consider things "good" or "bad." Certainly not! These irrational perceptions are there for a reason. They, along with all of our other characteristics have, at least at some point in our existence on the planet, whether as human beings or earlier, contributed to the survival of our genes. It would be as unhealthy to unconditionally resist something that is a part of our nature, as it would be for a heterosexual male to constantly resist "looking on a woman so as to lust after her." We can, however, condition our acceptance of this aspect of our nature with logical thought. We can realize that we live in a vastly different world, and in vastly different societies, than the one our evolution has fitted us to cope with. We cannot blindly associate out-groups such as the Jews, or blacks, or adherents of alien religions, with evil, because the resulting mass slaughter and genocide, at the most fundamental level of our judgment of "good," do not promote our own survival.
Among the most remarkable in-groups of fanatical quasi-religious ideological fundamentalists were the Communists. Communism had all the characteristics of a religion. There was an easily identifiable ideological in-group that was, for all practical purposes, Communist, in England long before Marx. This was noticed by a very brilliant, perceptive, and under-appreciated British thinker, Sir James MacKintosh. He noted the "religious" aspects of this "proto-Communism" long before Marx. He also predicted that, if such an ideology ever acquired political power, it would be a despotism, but that it would fail because of the requirement that it deliver its "heavenly rewards" in the here and now rather than in some hereafter not so easily subject to "fact checking."
Many of the Communists were highly intelligent, and they were not intrinsically "evil" people. They were true believers in a bright new future for mankind. They fought bravely, and with incredible dedication and self-sacrifice for what they considered the "good." That "good" was in no way shape or form intrinsically, objectively, "less good" than the "good" of modern progressives, the "good" of the Christians, the "good" of the conservatives, or the "good" of any other ideological in-group. The history of Communism is a cautionary tale. It demonstrates why atheists and other thinking people must be constantly wary of "assimilation" by some new fundamentalism, theist or otherwise.
@Bonzai
"In the way it is invoked as an explanation,"God" serves the same function as the "x" is an equation to be solved. It is just a place holder, a name for the unknown.It tells us absolutely nothing about what the solution may be. It is not a solution, not even a wrong solution. At least you can show a wrong solution is wrong by checking."
Nietzsche put it very nicely. He pointed out that it was the nature of human beings "to prefer to have the void for a reason than to be void of a reason."
Comment #29858 by Helian on April 5, 2007 at 8:16 am
@sane1
"Just because some of us disagree with you and have pointed out where you have been mistaken, doesn't make us fundamentalists. The problem is your inadequate arguments, not our inaccessibility.'"
Just think of that paragraph as an allegory, like Genesis, and don't always assume I'm pointing my finger at you. ;-)
In general, atheists are far more accessible to rational argument than religious true believers. OTH, I know for a fact there are some pristine ideological bastions in my own brain that I have barely begun to assault with reason. For me, it's easiest to see when I read some political or philosophical magazine or journal from the past. For example, if you prefer American thinkers, try the atheist H. L. Mencken's "American Mercury," or "The New Republic" from the 20's and 30's. If your tastes run to British writers, try the "Edinburgh Review" or "The Quarterly Review" from the first half of the 19th century. They are full of articles by brilliant people that assume things that were "obvious" to them, but are hardly obvious to us. Then you start to think; these are really smart guys. Can I be that much brighter? How many things are "obvious" to me that just aren't true, and how do I ask the right questions to find out what they are? How do I overcome my own problems with cognitive dissonance?
The truth is hard to find. That doesn't mean we can give up searching for it.
Comment #29853 by Helian on April 5, 2007 at 7:50 am
It's very encouraging to me, a new visitor to this site, to read the posts of some very intelligent people who have obviously cared enough about defending the truth as they see it to challenge the theists, not merely by ridicule and name-calling, but armed with a thorough knowledge of the scriptures and history as well. Drawing attention to the many contradictions, inconsistencies and assertions in the Bible that contradict our expanding scientific knowledge is a powerful tool for opening minds that might otherwise have remained closed, as long as there is a small chink in the theological armor through which light can pass. Atheists sometimes succumb to a sense of hubris, that, if they can only point out these contradictions and inconsistencies to the true believers, they will see the light. Alas, it just ain't so. The minds of human beings are often inaccessible to the truth. Many of us have acquired "faith" in a certain perception of reality, and will assume that version of reality is true against all odds, adjusting the "facts" as needed to make them conform to that reality.
Many obvious examples occur to anyone who has taken the time to sit down and read the Bible, perhaps with a volume of Voltaire's "Philosophical Dictionary" on the side to point out some of the more obvious faux pas. There is, for example, the discrepancy in the genealogy of Jesus between the versions in the books of Matthew and Luke. It would seem that, on reading these two vastly different versions, a logical, open-minded person would conclude that the claim that the entire Bible is infallible is wrong. After all, a God who really loves us and wants us to find our way to a truth so critical to our welfare in the hereafter would hardly make us the butt of crude practical jokes, or allow gross mis-tranlations of his word to bamboozle generations of true believers. However, logical thought and open-mindedness are not strong suits of Christian true believers. They have simply come up with a host of "interpretations" of these contradictory genealogies to "make them right." The interested reader can find an example at www.theology.edu/ap10.htm
Another famous historical example, cited by Voltaire, among others, is the difficulty with the description of a "firmament" in the KJV of the Bible. Early civilizations commonly believed that the sun, moon, stars and other heavenly bodies were set in a solid, crystalline shell, or "firmament." That such a version of the firmament was exactly what the author or authors of Genesis had in mind seems obvious on the face of if to anyone who actually reads the book. For example, we read in Genesis 1:4, that it acts as a barrier, and there are waters above the firmament, placing the heavenly bodies beneath this body of water. According to Genesis 1:17, the stars are set in the firmament. Evangelist Paul Seely has given us a wonderful commentary on the historical facts relating to the notion of a firmament in many cultures, complete with observations on the original Hebrew as well as the later translations into Greek and English. He demonstrates conclusively that a solid firmament is precisely what is meant in the book of Genesis, as can be seen by pointing your browser to: faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
What, say you? Did he immediately repudiate his Christian faith and belief in the infallibility of the Bible? Not a bit of it! Seely concludes his paper with the observation that, "Certainly the historical-grammatical meaning of (the Hebrew word) raqiac is "the ordinary opinion of the writer's day." Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky. Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the scope of the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true." (!!)
This rather startling conclusion has been a bit much to swallow, even for Seely's fellow fundamentalists. They have chosen, predictably, to rearrange reality to get rid of the pesky firmament in the time-honored fashion noted above. Examples abound, and a few of them can be found www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp, www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2168, and www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/firmamentwaters.html
Whosoever among you has ears to hear, let him hear!
Of course, one of the biggest disconnects between the 6,000 year-old earth and reality is the discrepancy in the speed of light, as discussed, for example, at www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=52
If the earth is less than 7,000 years old, how did the light from distant galaxies, millions or billions of light years away, have time to reach us? A slam-dunk for science say you? Wrong again! For the fundamentalist, the Bible is, a priori, the absolute truth. For one who is determined to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and the absolute truth against all odds, no evidence to the contrary will ever suffice. You see, facts that seem to contradict the Bible simply can't be true. One accommodates them very easily, by simply readjusting reality: see, for example, www.rae.org/light.html
I know! The same thought has occurred to me. We are living in an insane asylum. Occasionally I am bothered a little by the reflection that I, too, am a human being, just like the fundamentalists who have these fanciful notions. How much superior to them could I really be in matters of intellect? Indeed, when I glance around me on this site I notice a host of atheist "fundamentalists" with ideological notions that, though secular, are nearly as inaccessible to reason as the faith of a theist. Why, surely, they all belong in the asylum, too! It seems the hardest truth for me to face is that it is not inappropriate that I, too, am an inmate.
Comment #29851 by Helian on April 5, 2007 at 7:45 am
"The big bang was the moment of creation for not only matter but also space and time. If time started with the big bang then there WAS NO BEFORE. It is completely meaningless to ask what existed before the big bang."
You can also point out that the fact that science still can't explain some things doesn't imply that a God is, therefore, necessary to provide the explanation.
Comment #29647 by Helian on April 3, 2007 at 7:38 pm
"So, I do not think there is anything to your objection that 'It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings.'"
The claim that one group of human beings is "nobler" than another implies a value judgment. There must be some standard for making the judgment. The question is, what is it? What is that objective standard? A theist would say that God is the standard. One group of humans is nobler or better or more moral than another because God says so. It happens that this is also illogical, but, in any case, the atheist can't appeal to a God. What, then, allows him to claim that one human group is nobler than another, or, in general, that one action is good and another bad? What is the objective basis for making such judgments?
Comment #29543 by Helian on April 3, 2007 at 10:59 am
"And why must you be so spuriously contrary?"
Surely you jest. For me, this is enthusiastic endorsement, amounting almost to slavish adoration.
Comment #29538 by Helian on April 3, 2007 at 10:44 am
"This doctrine, "the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions—pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like José Ortega y Gasset ("War is not an instinct but an invention"), Stephen Jay Gould ("Homo sapiens is not an evil or destructive species"), and Ashley Montagu ("Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood")," he writes."
I react with a certain unscientific glee when I see the works of Lorenz, Tinbergen, and the older generation of ethologists popularized in the 60's by Ardrey gaining the upper hand over the likes of Gould, Montagu, and Lewontin, led by such thinkers as Dawkins and Pinker. It has always seemed to me that Montagu, Lewontin and the rest of the "Not in our Genes" crew relied mainly on politically motivated ad hominem attacks rather than scientific debate to make their points, and their "scientific" point of view was conditioned mainly by the need for an artificial "ideal" species of human beings to properly fit into the utopias they were preparing for us. On the other hand, I can't entirely agree with Pinker's conclusions, for two reasons; 1) His perception of "the good" as a thing having a real, objective existence, and 2) His claims regarding the degree to which the historical record supports his conclusions.
"But, now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler."
What, exactly, does Pinker mean by "nobler?" It is logically impossible for an atheist to make such a statement without qualification. It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings. Pinker has elevated a subjective moral judgment to a real thing. Dawkins, it seems to me, shows a similar tendency to transmute subjective morality, a construct of the human brain, into a real, objective good-in-itself, a "thing" independent of the human mind, in his recent discussions of the "moral Zeitgeist." He fallaciously perceives things as "really good" and "really bad."
"This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth… in the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion."
The claim that, in spite of the events of the last century, the historical ebb and flow of violence point to the conclusion that violence has been in decline over long stretches of history and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species is not necessarily hallucinatory and obscene. It is simply wrong. After all, WWI, WWII, the Jewish holocaust, the Turkish massacre of Armenians, the mass butchery of Stalin, the immolation of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and many similar events have all occurred within living memory. They can't simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand because things seem to have gotten better since 1989.
"Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution—all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light."
All this may be true, and is not surprising in view of the fact that human beings have an innate predisposition to acquire standards of morality, which they perceive as absolutes, combined with the vastly improved means of public communication and education. Human nature, however, has not suddenly undergone any drastic change since 1989. It has remained fundamentally the same throughout recorded history. One aspect of human nature is the tendency to perceive other human beings in terms of in-groups and out-groups. In the manifestation of that aspect of our nature, we have become anything but "kinder and gentler." Rather, the very factors that make us "kinder and gentler" in some ways operate in others to make us more violent and dangerous to each other than ever before. Our out-groups no longer consist of the next village, or the next city-state. Thanks to our vastly improved technologies, allowing, among other things, the spread of ideological "truths" with incredible speed to vast numbers of people, out-groups have expanded from the people on the other side of the valley to massive categories, including millions of people. The examples are familiar to us all: Jews, Moslem or Christian infidels, the bourgeoisie, you name it. The identity of these categories certainly changes over time with changing ideologies and world views. However, in one form or another, the categories have always been there, and will continue to be there.
The manifestation of this aspect of our behavior in recent times has been anything but "kinder and gentler." It has been more horrific and devastating in its effects than anything that proceded it. The identification of the "bourgeoisie" as an out-group has resulted in what amounts to, for all practical purposes, the decapitation of the Cambodian people. The results have been similar for the Russians and many of the other peoples of the former Soviet Union. We still don't know the human cost of the "Cultural Revolution" in China. All this was justified and condoned by many of the "kinder, gentler" human beings, not only in the countries involved, but in the world at large, as "the breaking of a few eggs to make an omelet." In Europe, the Jews were nearly wiped out. The same happened to the smaller Armenian ethnic group in Turkey.
The negative effects of this aspect of human behavior have certainly been noticed, and measures have been taken to limit the manifestation of the behavior, without really understanding it. Thus, specific types of out-group identification have been isolated and identified as evil, such as anti-Semitism and other types of religious bigotry, racism, etc. However, out-group identifications evolve and change quickly, and this ad hoc method of dealing with them can't keep up. It may, perhaps, be more effective to educate people regarding the nature of the in-group/out-group complex in human behavior itself rather than particular manifestations of it. There are certainly no guarantees. Human beings require an out-group to hate, just as they require food to eat and air to breathe.
Continuing with Pinker's essay:
"At the widest-angle view, one can see a whopping difference across the millennia that separate us from our pre-state ancestors. Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage, quantitative body-counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with axemarks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own. It is true that raids and battles killed a tiny percentage of the numbers that die in modern warfare. But, in tribal violence, the clashes are more frequent, the percentage of men in the population who fight is greater, and the rates of death per battle are higher. According to anthropologists like Lawrence Keeley, Stephen LeBlanc, Phillip Walker, and Bruce Knauft, these factors combine to yield population-wide rates of death in tribal warfare that dwarf those of modern times. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million."
This is all, indubitably, true. It does not, however, justify Pinker's hubris about our becoming more "noble." Rates of death due to battle in the past were certainly much higher, but human populations found ways to compensate for this. Marriage took place much earlier, and reproduction rates were higher. There are few historical precedents for the mass slaughter of precisely the most intelligent and educated people in a given nation by their fellow citizens. That kind of "kinder, gentler" slaughter is a marked characteristic of our own time.
Pinker notes, "Meanwhile, for another kind of violence—homicide—the data are abundant and striking. The criminologist Manuel Eisner has assembled hundreds of homicide estimates from Western European localities that kept records at some point between 1200 and the mid-1990s. In every country he analyzed, murder rates declined steeply—for example, from 24 homicides per 100,000 Englishmen in the fourteenth century to 0.6 per 100,000 by the early 1960s."
Certainly, states have become more efficient at limiting violent acts such as murder among individual citizens. What all this fails to take into account is that the state has always been the most efficient murderer. State murder in the Soviet Union dwarfed anything that had ever taken place under the czars.
"On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture: Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots."
Since the middle of the twentieth century?? In the first place, there is no reason to artificially limit the mayhem to "interstate" wars, in the second place, the figures cited by Pinker are highly uncertain, and, in the third, there is no recent to expect that data from the extremely short time scale he mentions has any predictive value for the future whatsoever.
"Meanwhile, according to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent."
Now the "relevant" period of time has been ratcheted down to an even more dubious 16 years.
"As deplorable as they are, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the lethal injections of a few murderers in Texas are mild by the standards of atrocities in human history. But, from a contemporary vantage point, we see them as signs of how low our behavior can sink, not of how high our standards have risen."
This is certainly true, although, as one who has declaimed against anti-American hate on this cite, I would be the first to agree that the torture at Abu Ghraib was infamous and unworthy of a great democracy. However, the relative "mildness" Pinker cites cannot be interpolated to future events. Even assuming that he is right, and, as a whole, we have become kinder and gentler, our means of destroying each other and the efficiency with which we can use those means have been increasing exponentially as well. The number of nuclear states is increasing, and is likely to continue to increase. The fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in anger since 1945 is no guarantee that they will not be used in the future. Far from it. It is virtually certain they will be used. It is only a question of time. For one thing, nuclear weapons are far easier to manufacture than most people imagine. Anyone who has the necessary amounts of U235 or Pu239 has, for all practical purposes, the bomb. That is certainly true of relatively small groups of terrorists. Once the nuclear genie escapes from its bottle, Pinker's kinder, gentler humanity will evaporate in a flash.
"Then there is the scenario sketched by philosopher Peter Singer. Evolution, he suggests, bequeathed people a small kernel of empathy, which by default they apply only within a narrow circle of friends and relations. Over the millennia, people's moral circles have expanded to encompass larger and larger polities: the clan, the tribe, the nation, both sexes, other races, and even animals. The circle may have been pushed outward by expanding networks of reciprocity, à la Wright, but it might also be inflated by the inexorable logic of the golden rule: The more one knows and thinks about other living things, the harder it is to privilege one's own interests over theirs. The empathy escalator may also be powered by cosmopolitanism, in which journalism, memoir, and realistic fiction make the inner lives of other people, and the contingent nature of one's own station, more palpable—the feeling that "there but for fortune go I".
There is much I agree with in this and the previous paragraphs about the theories explaining the apparent decline in violent behavior. They all fail to take into account the fact that the in-group/out-group complex has not disappeared. The "moral circles" of our friends may "have expanded to encompass larger and larger polities," but so has the "moral circle" of the hated out-group.
"Whatever its causes, the decline of violence has profound implications. It is not a license for complacency:"
Here, here!!
"We enjoy the peace we find today because people in past generations were appalled by the violence in their time and worked to end it, and so we should work to end the appalling violence in our time. Nor is it necessarily grounds for optimism about the immediate future, since the world has never before had national leaders who combine pre-modern sensibilities with modern weapons."
All this is certainly true. If we really want to end violence in our own times, it seems to me we must relentlessly educate people about the nature of in-group/out-group behavior, and challenge the continuing hate against old out-groups, as well as hate directed at the new out-groups that will certainly emerge in the future.
29. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29373 by Helian on April 2, 2007 at 4:51 pm
@briancoughlanworldcitizen
"Perhaps you think I'd prefer a world where the major power was China, or the former Soviet Union or a resurgent Islamic Caliphate? Of course not, we are very fortunate that the worlds most powerful nation is broadly democratic and often amenable to reason."
Great, I'm going to take a day off bitching, after what I just saw RD subjected to over at the Postmodernism thread. The dirty bastards are even worse than me.
@Bremas
"You sound exactly like my father. Someone who pushes until people stop pushing back."
Your father must have been a great man.
"Now I remember why the Army and Marine Corps don't get along."
If the "incipient theocracy" ever really comes to pass, just grab me one of those old fashioned M-16's from the armory (not the really old kind that jam). Army and Marine Corps will go down swinging together.
@sane1
"To undercut my disagreement with you, you made the point that MY ox was not being gored. Having been proved flat out wrong in that assertion, you then argue that I am in denial. Sorry, Dr. Freud. Wrong, again."
Sorry if my Internet clairvoyance failed me and I misidentified your nationality. If you're an atheist, you can't be all bad, even if you are an American, right, Brits?
30. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29185 by Helian on April 2, 2007 at 2:38 am
"I think it is because of Dawkins admiration and respect for America in general and his liking of Americans that has motivated him to be so outspoken in his concern for what is happening there."… "I agree, and it should be stated more often."
Facts are stubborn things. They speak for themselves. The claim above would be tenable if Dawkins had stuck to the truth. He has not done so. Rather, he has uncritically repeated anti-American propaganda. I don't object to his American fundamentalists/Taliban meme because I have a problem with standing up to the Christian right in America, or because I think America can do no wrong, or because I think America should be immune to criticism. I object to it because it is a propaganda caricature, of a piece with a multitude of similar ideologically motivated propaganda caricatures, all intended to portray America as the evil out-group.
"What exactly is it that qualifies? So far it seems to be someone who disagrees with you that criticism of the US is legitimate, or that accepts for Iraqi casualties, (the low end) of numbers the British government has accepted as at least in the realm of feasible. This communicates to you the rock solid truth that the writers is an "america hater". Thats quite a leap:-)"
This is entirely of a piece with the rest of your comments. Any rational, fair-minded person who actually reads what I've posted will see for themselves that I don't claim that anyone who disagrees with me, or criticizes the US, is an America hater, or anything of the sort. The problem isn't that I am overly sensitive, or thin-skinned, or can't bear criticism of my country. The problem is that you can't perceive any reality outside of the anti-American ideological box you dwell in, along with so many others. For that reason, you can't see Dawkins comments on religion in America as the distortions that they are. No matter. Again, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that the religious right in America is not like the Taliban, and that fact is not going away. The suggestion that someone who repeatedly and obsessively makes that claim is anti-American, or has begun to perceive America as an evil out-group, is not "hysterical," nor does it justify all the other insults that people have chosen to substitute for rational argument on this thread. Rather, in a world full of anti-American haters, that suggestion is obvious to anyone who hasn't chosen to ideologically blind themselves.
"As always there is an attempt to sound moderate, but this is easily exposed by demanding some detail as to what specifically could be construed as bad form. When they can't, or won't acknowledge some recent and specific act of outrage on the part of the US, then the it's clear they've retreated into a shell of denial."
Notice the MO here. Brian doesn't attempt to meet my criticism head on. The suggestion that he actually debate the issues I've raised is demanding too much of him. Vaguely, he realizes that Dawkins' "American fundamentalists equals Taliban" meme is indefensible in any case. Instead, he struggles desperately to reach familiar ground. He tries the "America really is evil" gambit, pulling out his big dossier of American "sins." Here he can regain his footing, because he has a huge list of these "sins." Of course, I have never claimed that America can do no wrong, or should not be subject to criticism, or has never acted in a way that is not in accord with the "new moral Zeitgeist." Quite the contrary. No matter. He posts a big laundry list of them, and poses the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. He tries to divert the debate from the open anti-Americanism on gaudy display in Dawkins' book to the question of whether America really is evil. Notice the way in which he poses these questions. They are a showcase for the mentality of the irrational America hater. Everything on the list is debatable, and anyone capable of using an Internet search engine can quickly familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides of the question. Brian provides none of this context, nor does he show even the vaguest awareness of the arguments that conflict with his preconceived judgments. Rather, he insists that, unless I can prove a negative, and demonstrate in any case he chooses to bring up that America has done no wrong, it follows that any distortion that Dawkins chooses to publish must, ipso facto, be true. The "logic" is wonderful, isn't it? If I can't demonstrate that there has been no "recent and specific act of outrage on the part of the US," why, then, any distortion that Dawkins chooses to publish is "washed in the blood of the lamb." His sins, though they were black as night, have become as white as snow.
Sorry, Brian, but I have no intention of allowing you to divert the debate to the "America is evil" territory you're so familiar with. If you want to try and address any issues I've actually raised, instead of trying these diversions and throwing in a few gratuitous insults to top things off, be my guest. I'm always willing to debate any contention I've actually made. If, however, you prefer to debate the items in your "America is evil" dossier, don't despair. There are many other venues on the Internet where you can do just that. Just navigate your way to any American right wing blog, and hop on the buzz saw.
31. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29116 by Helian on April 1, 2007 at 5:55 pm
@Jonathan Dore
"Several points here:
1) TGD is a popular book written for a popular audience in 2005–06. Is it hugely surprising that the author, in searching for an example of a contemporary powerful political figure who has had a major impact on global current affairs that is widely considered malign, would fasten on Donald Rumsfeld? Would the point have been as immediately clear to a largely Anglo-American readership if Dawkins had cited, for example, General Than Shwe of Burma?"
It's certainly not surprising if my assertions about America as out-group are right. Ask yourself the same question. What, exactly, has been going on in the world over the last ten years? There is a war in Chechnya where the treatment of the population in general puts in the shade anything that Rumsfeld has ordered or condoned in Iraq. A Serbian dictator has attempted genocide. Tens of thousands continue to die in the violence in Darfur and Congo. Suicide bombers by the score have attacked Israel, murdering and mutilating large numbers of people, including many children. Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and Kim jong-il presides over a slave state where human beings have little more dignity than ants. Thousands are tortured and executed by the Chinese regime every year, and their organs sold for profit. Insurrections in Tibet and Sinkiang are brutally suppressed. Maoists butcher civilians in Nepal, and the list goes on. Have these events not all had a sufficiently "major impact on global current affairs" to please you? You're quite right, the persons responsible for these atrocities are not household words. That begs the question, why not? Rumsfeld has not promoted the violence in Iraq, which has mostly resulted from Iraqis attacking each other. He has done his best to restore order and stop the killing, without success. Other than that, things he has said, often taken out of context and believed without question by his enemies, have been objectionable to some. He has not done, ordered, or condoned anything even remotely similar to the vicious atrocities noted above. Yet he is singled out as an object of hate and indignation, and used as an icon of evil. And the reason? Why, he is an American.
"2) The fact that Dawkins could have cited a non-American but chose not to means, you suggest, that Dawkins's motive must have been anti-Americanism. Your logic necessarily means that any American name cited in this context would have been evidence of anti-Americanism, and therefore that the only way Dawkins could be absolved of the charge would be for him to have cited someone of any nationality other than American. In that case, by the same logic, citing General Than Shwe would have made him a running dog of anti-Myanmarism."
If Dawkins uses Americans as icons of evil for their actions when "someone of any nationality other than American" is committing acts that are far more evil by any reasonable standard, and incomparably more malicious and murderous in their intent, then, yes, I think it is evidence of anti-Americanism. If this were the only similar lapse in his book, or if they were few in number, I would have gladly held my peace. They are not few in number, and appear constantly and repetitiously throughout his book.
"3) If examples of powerful politicians who have a disproportionate influence on world affairs today seem to you to be disproportionately American, please reflect on a rather obvious fact: The United States is the world's sole military superpower as well as being a cultural superpower and the world's largest single national economy. Isn't it likely that a list of such people would be disproportionately American?"
The only rational basis for inclusion in such a list is not what you describe as "disproportionate" power, "disproportionate" influence, or a large economy. It is solely the nature of the acts committed, their intent, and the deliberately evil consequences that have followed.
"Similarly, if one is making a list of religious fundamentalists who overlap with the previous group, isn't it rather obvious that, as the most religious country in the developed world, the US is going to be rather strongly represented? If European names appear infrequently among the list of politically powerful religious wingnuts, perhaps it's because Europe, as a collection of increasingly post-religious societies, offers rather thin pickings by comparison (except for various popes who, you'll know if you've read TGD, come in for their fair share of stick too). By your reckoning, it seems, it is "anti-American" merely to notice these facts."
It is not, in my reckoning, "anti-American" to merely notice these facts, and I have never claimed anything of the sort. It is, however, most definitely anti-American to distort the nature of the religious fundamentalists you refer to by constantly associating them with the Taliban when they have refrained from murder, on anything like the scale of the Taliban, have not deliberately mutilated their enemies, have not destroyed precious cultural monuments, do not practice misogyny on a scale or with an impact on women anywhere near that of the Taliban, and are incomparably more benign than the Taliban when it comes to forcibly imposing their beliefs on others, and, in general, are not "like" the Taliban at all. Facts are not pro-American or anti-American. The one-sided choice of facts to promote a false version of reality, based on the perception of America as the evil enemy, is anti-American. Such anti-American propaganda, when taken to extremes, and actually believed, can lead to such ludicrous assertions as the claim that America is an "incipient theocracy."
"4) You say "your ox isn't being gored", but seem to have forgotten that the contributor you are addressing (sane1) clearly stated in the post to which you are responding that he is American too. Seems to me he has as much of a right to "own" a piece of what it means to be American as you do. He doesn't feel Dawkins is goring his ox. Why do you?"
Oxes can be, and certainly have been, gored in spite of the fact that many of the victims are slow to grasp what is happening, or never get wise, for that matter. The fact that sane1 chooses to remain in denial about anti-Americanism saddens me, but it doesn't impress me.
32. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29086 by Helian on April 1, 2007 at 3:10 pm
@Bremas
"Tommy Franks was a baffoon. Sorry, Helian. I can back that up in a personal conversation."
No need to be sorry on my account, Bremas. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about Franks one way or the other. It would be impossible for the ideologues here to fit me into their cut and dried version of reality other than as a "right wing wingnut." In fact, I strongly opposed going to war in Iraq, just as I strongly oppose, Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, et. al. They've made it easy for the haters, but the haters were there before Bush, and they'll still be there long after he's gone, regardless of who replaces him.
33. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29071 by Helian on April 1, 2007 at 1:37 pm
@Brian
"But lets not quibble over the lives of a few hundred thousand Iraqis. Lets accept the lowest figure you can possibly find. Some sixty thousand human beings are dead. What sort of critique should be tabled, and whom should it principly be directed at? Take your time."
Don't hold your breath. You're enough of a caricature of a European America hater as it is. If I egg you on you might get so over the top that people will think that I'm, you know, paying you just to make my point.
34. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29052 by Helian on April 1, 2007 at 11:55 am
"Helian, sure there is some anti-americanism knocking around the place, they just spent the last 3 years engaged in a deeply unpopular war which has resulted in the deaths of a half million people. They were also warned that it was a really bad idea, so yeah, a lot of people are pissed."
Your uncritical acceptance of the "half million people" canard, rejected as bunk even by the pacifist www.iraqbodycount.org, is certainly revealing when it comes to assessing your own ideologically conditioned preconceptions. As for the old, "It's all about Bush" canard, that's as hackneyed as it is ludicrous. No doubt you'll all be standing around utterly "shocked, shocked," when Bush leaves office and you notice that anti-Americanism hasn't abated in the least. You're obviously unaware of the fact that its expression was often much nastier, open, and unabashed during the Clinton Administration. This is certainly true of Germany.
"However this frustration hardly represents an existential threat to the continued existence of the US, and the idea of a co-ordinated media effort (man, do you know anything about the EU??) across dozens of countries smacks of "9/11 was an inside job" paranoia. So in effect all your efforts amount to protecting them, from at worst, a barrage of harsh language. Don't you have more important things to devote your time to?"
You know, it would really be nice if you would stop putting words in my mouth. Where, exactly, have I ever claimed there was some kind of a media conspiracy, or that media attacks on America were "coordinated?" The anti-Americanism that pervades the German media with vanilla sameness from left to right (I once saw Noam Chomsky's smiling face on a copy of the neo-Nazi "Deutsche Nationalzeitung," which was idolizing him) has nothing whatsoever to do with a "conspiracy," or a "coordinated effort." It reflects the bottom line, period. Hate sells.
In fact, anti-Americanism is an existential threat to everyone on the planet. The United States possesses a large nuclear arsenal. Some of the less thoughtful of my countrymen were already suggesting retaliation with nuclear weapons after 911. Pressure to use them will certainly increase after the next major attack. It is not necessarily probable that a nuclear holocaust will ensue. It is also not out of the question. It seems to me that, under the circumstances, fighting anti-American hate is not only important, but critical.
"Yet, as you point out in an earlier post, many Americans are still utterly ignorant of how angry people in Europe and elsewhere have become because of the actions of their government. Perhaps they should be less blissfully unaware in the future. Clearly we need to up the volume not back off."
The only difference between Americans and Europeans in this regard is that Europeans, though profoundly and woefully ignorant of the reality of the United States, have managed to convince themselves that they are universal experts about her. This, it seems to me, is a much more dangerous form of ignorance than that suffered by Americans.
"I have flagged Helian as a troll because he is writing emotionally laden and very long posts in which he is repeating the same point over and over again as if somehow if he/she does that we will agree with him/her. She/he is also a name caller and is clogging up the discussion. True, he provides fodder for replies, and his earlier posts were less trollish but he has now morphed into a full time troll in my understanding of the term."
Thank you for confirming everything I've said about the level of "tolerance" to be found on this site among the "open minded atheists," who show such a fine spirit of searching out opposing points of view to challenge their own. You can insulate yourself from people who don't share your opinion and are, therefore, "evil" if you like. There are plenty of other places for me to post, though, and you won't shut me up. I'll continue to be right in the face of you and your fellow ideologues and, you know what, here and there people are starting to listen.
35. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'
Comment #29040 by Helian on April 1, 2007 at 9:49 am
@Jonathan Dore
&qu