• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

LogDog

Active Member
Any thoughts on this Los Angeles Times article?

God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
March 15, 2007

PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.

Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo.

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.
 

Stairs In My House

I am protected.
Wow, that totally convinced me to stop being religious and to stop respecting the beliefs of religious people. Good thing I read that. I am absolutely certain that every person who reads this will be converted to atheism. And if they're not, they are clearly irrational/insane and should be institutionalized, sterilized or put to death.
 

Stairs In My House

I am protected.
Oops, wait, I just went out and read some other article that says that Scientology is true and everything else (including Sam Harris's atheism) is caused by body thetans, so never mind. I'm getting my emeter and will be forcibly auditing Sam Harris shortly. Good thing I read that Scientology article! Now I know what the truth is!
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Stairs In My House said:
Oops, wait, I just went out and read some other article that says that Scientology is true and everything else (including Sam Harris's atheism) is caused by body thetans, so never mind. I'm getting my emeter and will be forcibly auditing Sam Harris shortly. Good thing I read that Scientology article! Now I know what the truth is!


Rofl! The system *curse you system!* would not let me frubal both posts.

luna
 

Djamila

Bosnjakinja
I do wish they'd stop using the term "Balkanize" - I find it terribly insulting. I can't explain why, I just do... it's like they're making a bad joke about everything that happened here.

As for the article itself... fanatical athiests scare me just as much as fanatical theists.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I found nothing but hate speech in that quote. Intollerance is bad whether it is directed at Christians, atheists or (fill in YOUR religion here). In it's vapid appeal to "logic" it has indeed entered the realm of being delusional.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Once Harris has stomped out religion for it's insidious propensity for germinating, cultivating, and harboring terrorists, he should next turn his attention to science. Not only has science lead to the development of technologies which make it possible to blow the world up numerous times over, and thus is an obvious deadly threat to atheists, but the space exploration program created such blights on nutrition as Tang. For these inherently violent properties of science, surely it must be eradicated.
 

Stairs In My House

I am protected.
LogDog and/or Sam Harris said:
Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong.

Yeah, but the Bible and the Koran have gotten those facts wrong only once, each, whereas science gets them wrong time and time again, and frequently even disproves itself!

I mean, if we're going to act like we have to choose between science and religion, or that one is supposed to somehow be a substitute for the other, then we might as well compound that with even more gross misapplications of logic.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
If we're not required to respect people's religious beliefs, then I am disinclined to respect the non-theistic beliefs of hateful zealots like Harris who give atheism a bad and hostile reputation.

Personally I think the world would be a better place if we rounded up all the fanatics from every religion, including people like Harris and Dawkins, and let them fight it out away from real functioning society. Whoever wins the fight gets....umm....a cookie.
 

Stairs In My House

I am protected.
Djamila said:
I do wish they'd stop using the term "Balkanize" - I find it terribly insulting. I can't explain why, I just do... it's like they're making a bad joke about everything that happened here.

But Djamila, everybody knows that the Balkans are the only place in the whole world where people have ever divided themselves into lots of different groups and fought each other. The whole rest of the planet is a shining example of unity, love and peace nearly all the time, and whenever we're not it must be because we've been Balkanized by some Balkan with a Balkanator, because it surely can't be our own fault. ;)
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Stairs In My House said:
But Djamila, everybody knows that the Balkans are the only place in the whole world where people have ever divided themselves into lots of different groups and fought each other. The whole rest of the planet is a shining example of unity, love and peace nearly all the time, and whenever we're not it must be because we've been Balkanized by some Balkan with a Balkanator, because it surely can't be our own fault. ;)

Is that anything like a bazooka?
 

Stairs In My House

I am protected.
I'm waiting for the response from Jerry Falwell: Moderates Give Cover to Baby-killing Atheists and Homosexual Child Molesters, using pretty much the exact same text with a few key words changed.

MaddLlama said:
Is that anything like a bazooka?

It's a Balkan Bazooka Bulbous Bouffant!
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
LogDog said:
Any thoughts on this Los Angeles Times article?

God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
March 15, 2007

PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.
Pete Stark is an atheist, yes, and what he did took courage and I applaud him. He's also a Unitarian Universalist, which means that he belongs to a religion that has both atheists and theists. He is NOT anti-religion, and he would not give creedence to the tripe that Harris puts forth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48695

How dare Harris try to use Stark's courage to further his own fanatically anti-religious agenda.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
lilithu said:
Pete Stark is an atheist, yes, and what he did took courage and I applaud him. He's also a Unitarian Universalist, which means that he belongs to a religion that has both atheists and theists. He is NOT anti-religion, and he would not give creedence to the tripe that Harris puts forth.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48695

How dare Harris try to use Stark's courage to further his own fanatically anti-religious agenda.


:clap:clap:clap
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
lunamoth said:
Once Harris has stomped out religion for it's insidious propensity for germinating, cultivating, and harboring terrorists, he should next turn his attention to science. Not only has science lead to the development of technologies which make it possible to blow the world up numerous times over, and thus is an obvious deadly threat to atheists, but the space exploration program created such blights on nutrition as Tang. For these inherently violent properties of science, surely it must be eradicated.
*sigh* I would laugh luna, but from what I can tell Harris, like Dawkins, worships science. :(
 

lunamoth

Will to love
lilithu said:
*sigh* I would laugh luna, but from what I can tell Harris, like Dawkins, worships science. :(

That's why I thought it was humorous. :D Ah well, so much for my lame jokes. :yes:
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
lunamoth said:
That's why I thought it was humorous. :D Ah well, so much for my lame jokes. :yes:
No, I honestly thought it was very witty. :)

I just... am sad that science has become a tool to divide people.
 

standing_alone

Well-Known Member
I thought that the opinion piece made some interesting points (I don't really agree with 'em all, but...), though I didn't like some of the tone Harris took. His points would have been better made had he not resorted to things like calling God an "imaginary friend." While I would consider it a valid perspective, it lacks tact and professionalism. It's the same crap extremist of religious stripes resort to.

But LogDog, you should know better than to post anything by Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins) to make your point. Once people read the name, they won't consider any points made because his very name discredits any point he has and the thread will commence into a Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins) *****-slapping.
 
Top