I had a quick go at Sam Harris last year. There is also another interview here.
It's true! The more you think, the less you allow yourself to be duped, which means that you end up on the sidelines of all the joyous duping festivals run by church and state. And on some rare occasions, that can make you very sad.
I enjoyed reading the Harris stuff more than the Prager.
Harris tries to skew the terms to give himself the easier argument. I would not try to prove the existence of god, much less an interventionist god. I have been comfortable to be left alone to believe as I choose, and to let others make their own choices.
Harris seems to be a bit more bolshie about this, wanting theists to admit that their belief is stupid. All I can say is that it works for me. I like going to church, singing hymns hearing the pipe organ and contemplating things I might otherwise not think about. I think a religion that basically has as its major rule to love your neighbour as your self a very sensible and socially useful thing.
If others think this is shallow, tacky or trite, they are entitled to that view. Equally, they are not entitled to demand that others make all their decisions on the basis of some atheist approved logical method.
If others think this is shallow, tacky or trite, they are entitled to that view.
It's not the "love your neighbour" bit that they object to, SB.
AV: t's not the "love your neighbour" bit that they object to, SB.
Is it the pipe organ then?
No, its the idea that what consenting adults do in their bedroom is anyone elses business, among other things. Or the idea that the worst crime possible, punishable by eternal suffering, is not believing.
Definitely not the pipe organ.
B&W: Or the idea that the worst crime possible, punishable by eternal suffering, is not believing.
That is reserved for the afterlife, which should be of no concern to you. Of course not believing in leftism has cost millions their lives and happiness in the here and now in the gulags so symptomatic of leftism when it gets into power.
The recent aggressive atheism is a harbinger of worse to come - disbelieve or die.
I'm with the consenting adults, by the way.
The question ranks up there with "why did you murder your wife?"
Plurium interrogationum - a particularly dishonest fallacy.
The question presupposes that Atheists are angry people. THey aren't. No more than Christians.
Bruce: The question ranks up there with "why did you murder your wife?"
That question is perfectly valid in some circumstances.
Similarly in circumstances where we read things like the following:
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking.
Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.
It is reasonable to enquire why these people are apparently angry. If they want to put it about that theism is inconsistent with intelligence, they should expect such enquiries from people who have a more live-and-let-live approach to life.
Harris bemoans the fact that people with religious belief are also capable of building nuclear weapoans. Perhaps he should have started attacking Einstein ("God does not play dice with the universe").
Wow... two whole paragraphs talking about atheist anger without an example of atheist anger. That's what you have to demosntrate; anger. Not silly, contentious or wrong headed ideas.
Nor does "Boltian" use of adjectives and verbs actually make for an argument.
Example: The child bemoaned the money his parents paid the vendor before he angrily licked his ice cream.
It's not overly convincing either. Even when lefties do it.
Example: SB angrily attacked atheists, feverishly pointing to the failings of his straw man.
While this would summarise your argument, it mischaracterises your mood. You aren't angry.
You have to do more than assert that there is anger, you have to demonstrate it.
Further more, you have to deomonstrate such anger is inate to atheism, not just some atheists. The question is "Why are atheists (without exception) so angry?"
That question is perfectly valid in some circumstances.
Wrong.
Any grouping without exception = all of that grouping and no exception was made. At best, one can assume that the question is poorly worded and that they mean only most atheists. It does imply that such anger is innate (as all such generalisms do.)
The question isn't about "some circumstances."
It based on a fallacious and dishonest, inductively weak presumption. Sort of like asking the following loaded questions based on a couple of presumptions made by David Stove;
Why are black people so stupid?
Why are women so stupid?
The presumption makes the assumption that the stupidity is innate; and go and read Stove, he does say the stupidity of Black people and women is innate.
The same is true of the question in question. The question doesn't suddenly become valid if a handful of atheists turn out to be angry people. Not that you've demonstrated that either.
The recent aggressive atheism is a harbinger of worse to come - disbelieve or die.
Prove it.
Bruce, the question is of course valid where a group of leading atheists appear to be getting angry in a fairly public way.
Your choice to add in the qualification "without exception" is nothing more than a rhetorical device to make your argument easier. It is not the meaning that a normal reader would take from the expression. Talk about straw men!
If the question was so fundamentally flawed I would have expected something other than "As an atheist, I am angry that ...." from Harris.
A better response from you would have been to say "not all atheists are angry" (which would hardly be news to most readers of the statement) rather than trying to close down the discussion by denying the validity of the question.
AV: The recent aggressive atheism is a harbinger of worse to come - disbelieve or die.
Prove it.
Wow! How do you prove a harbinger? What that statement means is that I believe we are witnessing the rise of militant atheism, that there is a conscious attempt to attack theists as intellectually incompetent and that ultimately more people will be persecuted for their theistic beliefs as has been the case under atheistic regimes in the past. I don't think this will start with killings, but rather the hounding of theists out of the academy as happens now to conservatives or those with politically incorrect views (eg Klocek at de Paul and Summers at Harvard).
I read the recent popularity of prominent weak-atheists like Dawkins and Harris as a response--long overdue--to the over-the-top religiosity of Bush America.
And the notion that an idea, however ridiculous, should be accorded respect because it is religiously inspired is questionable, however you look at it.
I'm with the consenting adults, by the way.
Why? As a result of your own moral reasoning, or because God says so?
Perhaps he should have started attacking Einstein ("God does not play dice with the universe").
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
--Albert Einstein
What that statement means is that I believe we are witnessing the rise of militant atheism, that there is a conscious attempt to attack theists as intellectually incompetent and that ultimately more people will be persecuted for their theistic beliefs as has been the case under atheistic regimes in the past. I don't think this will start with killings, but rather the hounding of theists out of the academy as happens now to conservatives or those with politically incorrect views (eg Klocek at de Paul and Summers at Harvard).
Christian persecutionist cant. There is no suggestion that Dawkins et. al. wish to force people to become atheists or punish those who remain theists.
Ridiculing that which one finds ridiculous, or critiquing that which one deems worthy of criticism, does not amount to persecution. To suggest otherwise is to install another kind of political correctness.
AV: Ridiculing that which one finds ridiculous, or critiquing that which one deems worthy of criticism, does not amount to persecution. To suggest otherwise is to install another kind of political correctness.
I am strongly supportive of ridiculing all ridiculous beliefs, especially my own, which is why I have issues with the anti-blasphemy laws in Brackistan.
I don't know about the cant. Theists have been persecuted by leftist atheists in the past, and would be wise to keep a weather eye on the new militant atheism, and how it controls its anger.
I hadn't seen that Einstein clarification before. He looks like a weak theist.
Theists have been persecuted by leftist atheists in the past, and would be wise to keep a weather eye on the new militant atheism, and how it controls its anger.
I don't know if it has escaped your attention, but it's the theists who call the shots these days--chiefly because, as Jen pointed out recently, too many mistake emoting for thinking. I'm not sure that a few sober, if vociferous weak-atheists are going to turn that around in a hurry (sadly).
Furthermore, the notion that if we permit the atheists to get too uppity today, they'll be frogmarching the downtrodden theists into labour camps tomorrow, requires a much larger leap of faith than I'm prepared to make. Indeed, the idea that since Soviet Russia was officially atheistic, atheism leads straight to the gulag, is a copybook example of the association fallacy.
Arthur, after Prager goes after a muslim for daring to use a qur'an in place of a bible, you know that you can't take any of his comments regarding angry atheism seriously.
If I ever go to court/parliament/insert swear box here, I'll ask to swear on Neil Jenman's "Don't Sign Anything."
Good post.
I don't what the situation is in Australia; I believe in the US there is no legal requirement to swear at all. Not doing so amounts to political suicide, however (emoting trumps thinking, etc.).
AV: Indeed, the idea that since Soviet Russia was officially atheistic, atheism leads straight to the gulag, is a copybook example of the association fallacy.
AV it seems you have a fallacy for every occasion. Here you are trying to prevent me from making the point that atheistic states have persecuted theists for their religious beliefs. I did not say that it necessarily follows that "atheism leads straight to the gulag" or that what happened in the past will necessarily happen in the future. All I am saying is that it might be worthwhile to pay attention to these people, especially the angry ones.
Also in Australia what used to be done by swearing can now be done by affirming the truth of the relevant statement. In NSW this sort of thing is governed by the Oaths Act.
Your choice to add in the qualification "without exception" is nothing more than a rhetorical device to make your argument easier. It is not the meaning that a normal reader would take from the expression. Talk about straw men!
Now you're just being dishonest (again) SB. "Without exception" in this instance is not a rhetorical device, nor is it an addition; it is a part of the logical form of the argument, quite unaltered. Nowhere is it inferred that said anger is not native to the majority or all of atheism. Nowhere is an exception made explicitly.
Fact: The argument is made without exception.
Fact: This is no addition of mine.
I have in no way misrepresented the question and your allegation of a straw man argument is nothing more than a deception.
If it weren't for your tendency to wrongly and incompetently* level charges of logical fallacy against me in retaliation to the exposure of your invalid arguments, I'd think that you didn't believe this wrong headed straw man BS and were deliberately lying. But as you have adequately demonstrated over the last year, you agree with palatable conclusions, not arguments. Hence as per Hanlon's razor, I chose to believe you aren't showing malice toward me.
...rather than trying to close down the discussion by denying the validity of the question.
You really live in a paranoid world don't you SB? I'm all for discussing angry atheists and in fact, I have promoted such discussion in the past. Your statement, as is often the case, is in stark contradiction to the truth.
What I am against is the loading of the question with a deceitful premise and that is what precisely is happening. If the question was "why is there a rise in atheist militancy?", or "why is atheist X so angry?**" then I'd be all for it. But unlike your suggestions, this is in fact not what is happening.
What I'm against is dishonesty and the fact that you defend this dishonesty by pretending that it is something that it isn't, speaks very poorly of your judgment. More importantly, it tells a sad tale about your willingness and ability for honest dialogue.
Seriously, your own "contributions" are what pose the greatest threat to discussion, not mine. This instrumentalism of yours, far more than the beliefs you defend with it, is the real debate killer.
* And again, you have to come to terms with the fact that as far as reason and goes, your arguments on Five Public Opinions have been incompetent. I don't mean to be rude, but it is a relevant fact.
** I believe we've had one of these before. But some people are best avoided.
AV it seems you have a fallacy for every occasion.
No. It's just that you need to pay more careful attention to your reasoning.
Here you are trying to prevent me from making the point that atheistic states have persecuted theists for their religious beliefs.
Because that point bears absolutely no relevance to the current discussion. Not even the "angry" atheists have suggested punishment, coercion or forced conversion as a way of dealing with theism; quite the opposite, in fact.
I did not say that it necessarily follows that "atheism leads straight to the gulag" or that what happened in the past will necessarily happen in the future. All I am saying is that it might be worthwhile to pay attention to these people, especially the angry ones.
It might even be worth your while actually listening to what they have to say, before you introduce red herrings about Stalinist Russia. Then you may see that the odd book tour by Richard Dawkins constitutes no reason to live in fear of a knock at the door by your friendly neighbourhood atheist death squad.
Bruce the question was why are atheists angry?
The question you attacked was why are all atheists angry?
Now if you cart the question off to your hothouse philosophical laboratory you might get away with saying that there is a rule of construction that unless there is an express exception made, the statement is to be judged as if it applied to each and every atheist.
The problem with this is that the statement should be construed in the context in which it was made. In this case that context is as a catchy title for a debate between an angry atheist and a theist.
In that context it is clear that the question was not meant to imply that all or even most atheists were angry. That meaning can only be extracted by dragging the question into that dark netherworld of philosophic pedantry and apply an arbitrary rule of interpretation. By doing so the discussion is not advanced, but merely sidetracked. It would have been far more enlightening if you had noted that not all atheists are angry and made some observations about the difference.
In the end you have only wasted space calling me names I don't really understand.
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own, 
Some political ideologies do not "play well" with other political ideologies.
Consequently, any political ideology which wants to ensure their power tries to eliminate (either through rhetoric or sometimes nastier means), their competition.
The more extreme or fundamental the ideology is, the more likely they are to resort to extreme measures.
I don't see evidence of "militant atheism" in the west.
The majority of atheists I know are very happy living in a secular state which offers protection for its citizens regardless of their religion, or their lack of one.
Atheists are, though, going to be more vocal if a fundamental religiously based, political ideology starts demanding religious exclusivity.
The secular state is the happy medium between theocracy and an atheistic state.
I am happy to support the secular state.
"A secular state is a state or country that officially is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices, and has no state religion or equivalent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sec...i/
Secular_state
AV: the very example of association fallacy you attributed to me was: Indeed, the idea that since Soviet Russia was officially atheistic, atheism leads straight to the gulag, is a copybook example of the association fallacy.
When I denied saying that atheism leads straight to the gulag you accused me of not listening. I don't think it is a red herring to look at historically how atheists have acted, not for the purpose of concluding how different atheists will in future act, but for the purpose of being on guard to avoid past mistakes. Certainly some atheists seem to have a merry old time recounting past wrongs of theists, and pointing out what they see as tendencies indicating likely repetition of those mistakes.
My more immediate concern is that if athiest PC takes hold Professor Newton will be sent down for his obsession with the book of Daniel and Dr Kepler will be denied promotion because everyone knows he is more interested in the music of the spheres than planetary motion.
Beepbeep, I agree with you about the secular state.
I am concerned that the new crusade of the angry atheists is aimed at getting religion out of intellectual life generally. I don't see that this is bad when confined to the level of intellectual discussion. My concern is that it will get to the stage of people being denied public or academic office because their religious belief is taken to render them irrational.
Certainly some atheists seem to have a merry old time recounting past wrongs of theists, and pointing out what they see as tendencies indicating likely repetition of those mistakes.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
My more immediate concern is that if athiest PC takes hold Professor Newton will be sent down for his obsession with the book of Daniel and Dr Kepler will be denied promotion because everyone knows he is more interested in the music of the spheres than planetary motion.
What rubbish you spout. Two of the most prominent evolutionary biologists are the evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Catholic Ken Miller. Neither of whom appear to be in any danger of losing their jobs because of their theistic beliefs.
"Atheist PC??" Until you can show me an employment contract requiring the signee to renounce his or her theism as a condition of employment, it's safe to assume that you're talking out of your arse again.
My concern is that it will get to the stage of people being denied public or academic office because their religious belief is taken to render them irrational.
The only institutions that apply religious tests that I am aware of are religious institutions--e.g. Christian schools that demand that their staff be regular churchgoers.
Now, academic institutions have the right to set their own academic standards. A student graduating from a high school in which the science curriculum is dominated by Creationism might have difficulty securing a place in a university biology course (without at least taking a bridging course). That doesn't mean the university has an "atheist bias": it simply means that it (rightly) does not consider Creationism to be scientific, and hence does not consider students schooled in Creationism to be adequately prepared for university science.
AV "Atheist PC??" Until you can show me an employment contract requiring the signee to renounce his or her theism as a condition of employment, it's safe to assume that you're talking out of your arse again.
I was referring to atheist PC as a future possibility rather than as a present fact. And at least in the initial stages I doubt that it will be done as visibly as clauses in contracts. Although you may think I am a paranoid old cold warrior, I will still be keeping one eye on the angry atheist crowd. And I have much better things to do with my arse than talk out of it.
Although you may think I am a paranoid old cold warrior, I will still be keeping one eye on the angry atheist crowd.
I do think you're being incredibly paranoid in this case. And your comparison of today's prominent atheists with the Stalinists of yesteryear is horribly misplaced.
For one thing, the Stalinists thought they could force reality to fit a pre-exisiting ideological mould (e.g. Lysenkoism in biology), and in that respect are much closer to Creationists and fundamentalist Christians than they are to contemporary atheists.
Contemporary atheists are concerned to defend the importance of reason and of secular liberal democracy. I don't think you need to worry about them.
AV: I don't think you need to worry about them.
I haven't really worried about them until now. I am much more worried about some types of theists. But then when you learn that atheists are getting angry it doesn't hurt to pay them some attention.
Edited By Siteowner
I am not trying to impersonate you, AV. I must have typed your name in the wrong spot.
Fixed. -- AV
Bruce the question was why are atheists angry?
The question you attacked was why are all atheists angry?
They are the same.
Atheists without exception, which is an accurate representation of a term of the argument, is equal to all atheists.
To imply they are different is to imply that "ten minus zero" and "ten" are not equal. Atheists = all atheists minus no atheists (ie no exception).
It is an attempt to smear all atheists with positions and attitidudes that they don't hold. Pointing this out is in no way pedantry.
In the end you have only wasted space calling me names I don't really understand.
Like I said. I'm up for honest debate. As distinct for discussing your reasoning, prejudice and behaviour, which have been material to the discussion, where have I called you a name?
With regularity, you put dishonest and/or fallacious arguments into discussion. Complaining when you get called on it is trite. If you don't like it, make the effort to be sincere and reasonable like most of us.
If you keep regularly mischaracterising what I say, I'm going to start thinking that you are doing it out of malice, rather than a lack of ability.
This assertion that I've called you names is so blatantly false (just like when you falsely claimed I was trying to shut down debate), that I have difficulty attributing it to just a lack of reasoning.
If your habit of misrepresentation continues in spite of being pointed out, I'm going to stop calling it irrational/dishonest, and start calling it deliberate lying. You can only be untruthful for so long before you lose the right to claim that it isn't deliberate.
Lift your game SB. Your stock tactics of cannards, falsehoods and distortions are getting stale.
Bruce the one I didn't understand was instrumentalist. You said: This instrumentalism of yours, far more than the beliefs you defend with it, is the real debate killer.
I checked it out on wikipedia but they had a few meanings, and I wasn't sure what you were getting at.
Now as to the meaning of Why are atheists so angry?
You have explained how you can closely parse the phrase, taken out of context and come up with the view that it is identical to why are all atheists so angry.
You haven't explained why that is a better view than one obtained by examining the statement in context ie that it is a title for a debate, and that it is not part of some academic discourse.
If in general conversation I ask for example why are Dutch people tall I am not implying that they are all tall, and nobody would take me to be saying that. But applying your method I did not make an exception and therefore I am to be condemned for saying that all Dutch people are tall. This dispute is really as simple as this: you want to apply a means of construction which produces a meaning which is not available having regard to the context in which the phrase is used.
I checked it out on wikipedia but they had a few meanings, and I wasn't sure what you were getting at.
Conclusion is determined first (such as my apparent wanting to shut down debate), rationale is determined second to fit conclusion. Like Keith Windschuttle picking his methodology to yield the conclusions he wants (he's even used the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis which is from a school of thought he has routinely lambasted).
You have explained how you can closely parse the phrase, taken out of context and come up with the view that it is identical to why are all atheists so angry.
Wrong. They aren't just two similar or identical arguments. They are the same argument.
As for being out of context, that's another blatant falsehood. Because of Arthur's links, none of us have been kept in isolation from Rabbi Gellman's article where he formulates the question. Read it. You will note that he talks about atheists in aggregate. He talks about atheists and atheism without exception, just like I've been saying all along.
SB, you've had access to the context and it supports my argument to the hilt. You've had the veracity of many of your statements repeatedly questioned, enough for any sensible person to double check the truth of what they are claiming. Given that you have been in posession of this knowledge (I'm assuming you have read Gellman's piece), how is it that you can level such an untruth against me; namely that I am taking the question out of context?
I can no longer accept that this is indeliberate. Your latest charge against me is false and it is well beyond reasonable to assume that you know it is false.
At least, this is my view assuming that you are actually sensible enough to check the veracity of your statements. Should I change this view? Should I assume that you are to intellectually lazy to question your own claims, even when making claims about the motives and tactics of others?
If in general conversation I ask for example why are Dutch people tall I am not implying that they are all tall, and nobody would take me to be saying that.
You would be implying that all Dutch people have an inate propensity towards being tall, just like "why are atheists so angry?" implies an inate anger in atheists.
Your analogy serves you poorly.
Bruce: As for being out of context, that's another blatant falsehood. Because of Arthur's links, none of us have been kept in isolation from Rabbi Gellman's article where he formulates the question. Read it. You will note that he talks about atheists in aggregate. He talks about atheists and atheism without exception, just like I've been saying all along.
Bruce I told you what I thought the context was, which is the direct link AV gave us in this post.
I don't know where you got Gellman's link from (a previous post I assume). It makes no difference.
Gellman says: "However, there is something I am missing about atheists: what I simply do not understand is why they are often so angry." This is a million miles from all atheists are angry, which is your reading.
But back to the current thread. The context there is unmistakeable, and I fail to see the connection to the Gellman statement. If you are going to make this connection, please be more explicit about it than AV has previously linked to it, which really doesnt hold water.
You would be implying that all Dutch people have an inate propensity towards being tall,
No that is not it either. The question is how you should construe the statement that "Dutch people are tall". I submit that this doesn't mean that all Dutch people are tall, nor that all Dutch people have a propensity to be tall, but rather that a lot of Dutch people are tall, or perhaps on average, the Dutch are tall. Whatever it means, it most certainly doesn't mean that all Dutch people are tall. And pleasse explain how a person can have a propensity to be tall without being tall - that has really got me stumped.
Commenting by HaloScan
