Say what?!

it appears to be simply an example of bad taste....

not uncommon

It is certainly juvenile if not totally barmy. As one Atheist, I reject even the thought of such a stupid event. A Holy War implies Faith. Since Atheists by definition lack any kind of faith in deities, a Holy War makes no sense.

We don't believe in anything Holy, and most of us are opposed to all wars not in self-defence.

As a Secular Humanist, I do not favour violence against religion or religious belief. I oppose religion only in verbal and rational debates. I hope Theists would feel the same way.

Jokes about killing people are totally unacceptable.

Amergin
 
I found the title of their board and the discussion quite ironic, to say the least. ;)
 
I found the title of their board and the discussion quite ironic, to say the least. ;)

At the same time, I've found, to my surprise, that thinking along those lines is not entirely unprecedented among (some of) today's skeptics. If you want to know to what degree that which is tongue-in-cheek in one context (the bizarre thread referenced in the OP) may be deadly serious in another, check out this bon-bon from Sam Harris --

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

(http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2);

(http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris);

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith);

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29);

(Talk:Sam Harris (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A fuller discussion of the remark and its full context is found here --

http://aloadofbright.wordpress.com/2007/05...quoting-harris/

And Harris himself elaborates on it here --

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/re...to-controversy2

For the life of me, I do not see how his saying that "I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior" in any way offsets his initial statement. Instead, it amplifies and justifies the prima facie reading! Since he's still saying that there is a fatal link between belief/behavior(!), he is in no way stepping back from advocating that beliefs can be just as dangerous as behavior and should therefore be treated the same way!

Furthermore, I find it interesting that others have responded to this non-disclaimer-disclaimer the same way I do --

http://aloadofbright.wordpress.com/2007/05...quoting-harris/

Here are two blogs by two different atheists, Theodore Dalrymple reviewing Harris's END OF FAITH and commenting on the genocide remark --

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/wh...eists-dont-see/

and Sam Harris responding to Dalrymple's critique --

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/re...dore-dalrymple/

I invite everyone here to weigh in on this exchange.

Sincerely,

Operacast
 
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
I would think some people would think that might just be one.


As to the exchange, it appears to be as much a waste of time as many exchanges between literal atheists.
He is not the first professed “atheist” to suggest that, while he can get along just fine without an imaginary friend, most human beings will always need to delude themselves about God—nor is he the first to fail to see just how condescending and unimaginative one must be to believe such a thing about the rest of humanity.
I have no imaginary friend nor a need for one.

Why are atheists so hung up on an anthropomorphic G!d?
 
Why are atheists so hung up on an anthropomorphic G!d?
I think often because that's the level at which they want to set the argument — the a priori assumption that theism is naive and silly.

Bring the argument up to date, and often they're floundering for something to say about ideas they haven't even considered.

Christianity rests not in the idea of an anthropomorphic God, as a theomorphic human.

Then again, the anthropomorphic image is as valid as any, the whole of the Bible is founded on it, after all.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Christianity rests not in the idea of an anthropomorphic God, as a theomorphic human.
:eek: what have you come over to the dark side? :eek:
Then again, the anthropomorphic image is as valid as any, the whole of the Bible is founded on it, after all.
Yes, as a metaphor.

If we actually believe G!d walked thru the garden calling for Adam and Eve litterally, we surely wouldn't have an all knowing G!d. If we believed the rest litterally our G!d would need to be on something to solve 'his' self esteem issues.
 
:eek: what have you come over to the dark side? :eek:
No ... this is basic theology, it's in Scripture, after all (John, Paul, Hebrews refer to it) ... Irenaeus first developed a salvation theology of 'recapitulation' based on Paul, St Augustine called it 'capax dei' — man's capacity to know God.

Yes, as a metaphor.
Everything is metaphor, when it comes to God, because words cannot adequately express it. Sometimes the simple metaphors are better than the complex. But because something is a metaphor doesn't mean it's not real.

I delight in the philosophical transcendentals as metaphors for God — the Absolute, the Infinite, the Good, the True, the Beautiful ... but that lights my fire, it doesn't do a lot for most Christians. Most people aren't into metaphysics.

But whilst those metaphors might please the modern intellect, they do not convey the idea of Divine Union anywhere near as effectively as does the metaphor of God as 'father' or 'groom'; the soul as 'son' or 'bride' ... so in fact the 'naive' metaphor is far more nuanced than the metaphysical and intellectualist philosophical terms.

If we actually believe G!d walked thru the garden calling for Adam and Eve litterally, we surely wouldn't have an all knowing G!d. If we believed the rest litterally our G!d would need to be on something to solve 'his' self esteem issues.
Then I would suggest you're reading it according to the letter, rather than according to the spirit. An atheist would say pretty much the same thing.

I am sure there are those who think that ... but their faith is in God, not in metaphors, so there's no real harm in that.

We all need our myths to believe in ... :rolleyes:

The harm accrues when you get the silly creationists insisting that men rode dinosaurs, or that evidence was created pre-aged to make the earth look older than its 4,000 odd years ...

There are spiritual commentaries by saints and sages that are luminous with their insight on just these texts ... read Dionysius on the Divine Names, for example or his Mystical theology, both of which give an understanding of how to interpret the qualities predicated of a God who transcends all predicates.

God bless,

Thomas
 
We all need our myths to believe in ... :rolleyes:

The harm accrues when you get the silly creationists insisting that men rode dinosaurs, or that evidence was created pre-aged to make the earth look older than its 4,000 odd years ...
Agreed and agreed. The bible is my go to collection of spiritual thought...and its myths are near and dear to my heart... but yes our American literalists...yikes.

I'm just amazed at my recent education due to discussios here, that it is not as common worldwide as it is here locally....big surprise to me.
 
I think often because that's the level at which they want to set the argument — the a priori assumption that theism is naive and silly.

Bring the argument up to date, and often they're floundering for something to say about ideas they haven't even considered.

Christianity rests not in the idea of an anthropomorphic God, as a theomorphic human.

Then again, the anthropomorphic image is as valid as any, the whole of the Bible is founded on it, after all.

God bless,

Thomas

I think the anthropomorphic god image is taken from literal reading of the Bible. God is depicted as jealous, vindictive, angry, unjust, cruel, and constantly demanding human worship. That certainly suggests a God with human personality characteristics. That is the major fault in Judaism and Christianity. One must avoid reading those scriptures literally.

One can speculate a God who created the Universe and all that followed including intelligent life. The Bible is unnecessary and perhaps distraction to one who seeks a real God-Creator.

Common sense suggests that a Creator can not likely be a very large bipedal talking primate.

God could be something entirely different. Terms like intelligence, consciousness, body shape, and human model personality may not be necessary. Clearly the Biblical God is created in man's own image and likeness.

As with the Deists, God may simply be undefinable, existing in an extradimensional plane of existence, exerting the effects we see as the Big Bang. It is unlikely that a Universe creator actually obsesses over one's sex life.

I don't deny the possibility of God. I simply deny the Anthropomorphic God as being nonsensical. If I consider the Creative Force of the Universe, I see no reason to argue over intelligence or consciousness, other than our animal nature as the template.

I don't see a god as a naked old man reclining on a cloud reaching his hand toward a human.

God is just the name we choose to give to the creative process. It may simply be undiscovered and unexplained by mathematical equations. So postulating about consciousness is simply spinning speculation. Speculating that God kills millions of humans, orders Israelites to kill men, women, and children, and sends a series of plagues to Egypt is (IMO) irrational speculation.

For some reason the human invented Anthropomorphic God Judeo-Islam and Christianity with his violence and cruelty seems to induce evil actions among believers.

It is obvious to me that there is no supernatural being who interferes with the activity of we animals. To do so would mean the God is a super animal only.

Amergin
 
Agreed and agreed. The bible is my go to collection of spiritual thought...and its myths are near and dear to my heart... but yes our American literalists...yikes.

I'm just amazed at my recent education due to discussios here, that it is not as common worldwide as it is here locally....big surprise to me.

I agree with that.

Amergin
 
Back
Top