John Gray's "The Atheist Delusion" - Irish Times 20th March

JC 2K3

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't like the term but please don't put words into my mouth - I have never said that being athiest makes you anything but athiest. I also hate the term theist btw.

Well I was only speculating as to why you might dislike the term.

Care to explain why exactly you dislike the terms theist and atheist?

helena.ryan wrote: »

I accept that, athiesm is not a movement of any type, there are no athiest groups or "orders" no set of rules etc but in fairness many athiests have the similar beliefs in most things. So do you think athiests as individuals can learn from the philosophy behind some religions?

Of course.....

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

That reminds me of that joke, can't remember who it is by

My parents were perfectly happy with the idea of me not believing in God, but when I told them I was an atheist that was too far

The point of the joke is of course than an atheist is simply someone who doesn't accept gods or theistic belief as being real.

If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Using the very very basic meaning of the word yes, but the general understanding of athiesm is non belief in anything spiritual - which I have very strong beliefs in. So perhaps technically I could be considered athiest, but I am not as cynical (and I use the word with respect) as athiests in general.

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if Dawkins is the biggest hypocrite in the world his ideas should still be judged on their own worth.

The reason, I suspect, that some theists love to charge Dawkins and Harris with hypocrisy is that they know they actually make rather strong convincing arguments, and the rather actually try and show they are wrong (which is hard) they spout a serious of charges of being just as bad as what they complain about. It is debatable if that is true, but it is also largely irrelevant to their arguments.

But I am not calling any of them hypocrites.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Care to explain why exactly you dislike the terms theist and atheist?

Well I think they are too black and white. So I'm sure someone will say "not black and white, you either believe or not" I'm afraid it's not that simpl for me.

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

Using the very very basic meaning of the word yes, but the general understanding of athiesm is non belief in anything spiritual - which I have very strong beliefs in.

Well I suppose you would have to define "spiritual", but atheism simply means absence of belief in deities. There are a number of regular posters on this forum who believe in (or are at least open to) the supernatural

helena.ryan wrote: »

But I am not calling any of them hypocrites.

No, John Gray is.

Not everything is about you, little miss world revolves around me (JOKING!) :p

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well I think they are too black and white. So I'm sure someone will say "not black and white, you either believe or not" I'm afraid it's not that simpl for me.

Well an atheist is pretty black and white, you don't believe in gods. If you aren't sure you are agnostic, if you do you are a theist.

I think you are reading too much into the meanings. What you attribute with atheism is probably better classified as "humanistic"

lostexpectation

who the **** the is john gray and why he get half a page in the irish times?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

the guardian entitlies him The contrarian
ah i see he makes a living pretending to be a wiser head then eveybody else by saying the opposite of what is somewhat popular.

lostexpectation

see reville is still writing about religion in his science column

Sapien

John Gray wrote:

But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story).

Well duh! He couldn't have missed Pullman's point more fully if he had ducked behind a low wall.

Gray's is a rather shallow argument really. He doesn't at any point tackle atheism per se, rather the culture that has grown up around it in recent years. Aside from that, Gray says nothing of substance, in fact, he gives no reason to believe that he is not an atheist himself (does anyone know?). And I suppose, really, we should all be open to reflection on the way prominent atheists deal with their growing audience.

His argument is bitty and piecemeal. He deliberately misunderstands Memetics as badly as he does Pullman. His jibes about magical mobiles are glib straw men. His panegyric about the philosophical flexibility of Eastern religions is irrelevant. There is a reason why these atheists focus on Western Christianity - it's in their own back yard, and it is epitomically egregious in most important regards. Gray's rendition of that jaded old chestnut - that atheism is becoming a religion - is no better than many seen on this forum, or the... other one. I have never been convinced that "evangelical atheism" exists, and that hasn't changed.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

Not everything is about you, little miss world revolves around me (JOKING!) :p

:eek::eek::eek: It doesn't?!?!? Course it does, don't be so ridiculous!

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose you would have to define "spiritual", but atheism simply means absence of belief in deities. There are a number of regular posters on this forum who believe in (or are at least open to) the supernatural

Well I think "spiritual" is as difficult to define as "paranormal" or "supernatural" - it depends on the person, but the A&A forum is not the place for me to discuss the difference between them as.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well an atheist is pretty black and white, you don't believe in gods. If you aren't sure you are agnostic, if you do you are a theist.

but doesn't it depend on what a "god" is supposed to be or is that irrelevant? Is a god one omnipotent being, or any higher powers?

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are reading too much into the meanings. What you attribute with atheism is probably better classified as "humanistic"

Perhaps. I'm only learning you know

Galvasean

helena.ryan wrote: »

Few quick points

I dont believe in God, but would hardly consider myself athiest. So I am confused about what I am

Ah, so youre an agnostic then. I think I have a cream for that...

Hot Fuzz reference BTW

Akrasia

Cactus Col wrote: »

I agree ... what I'm saying is that a lot of posters on here haven't even gone so far as to read books by biologists or cosmologists, rather, they have limited their reading to books by Atheist writers such as Dawkins and Hitchins, or whoever (or is that whomever?) is the flavour of the day.

They have based their truths not on cold science, but on the the arguments of these writers.

I became an atheist not because of anything other atheists said, but because of what the religious people tried to convince me was the truth.

I left religion because i thought about it and it makes absolutely no sense.

I studied philosophy including the prominent Theologens and Christian thinkers like Aquinas Anselem, Kant etc, and none of their most deeply considered defences for the existence of god held any water. (the ontological argument is laughable).

Akrasia

DaveMcG wrote: »

Of course they can..... "Love thy neighbour" is a fairly nice thing to take on board. "Thou shalt not kill" is a good 'un. I'm not familiar with the teachings of Islam, but I'm sure there's alot of good parts to it.

They're good ideas, but they're not exactly original. Those were ethical standards long before christianity.

I can take lessons from anything I like! Have you read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' by Harper Lee? It's one of my favourite books ever! If you take on board what Atticus says, you'll go far in life. At the same time you'll have to sift through all the racist crap that's in it.

Yep. There are works of literature out there that have a moral message vastly superior to anything written in the bible (new or old testament)

lostexpectation

another huge 2/3 of page in the times today wtf?

Rev Hellfire

lostexpectation wrote: »

another huge 2/3 of page in the times today wtf?

It's almost like they're printing articles they think their readers would be interested in reading ! wtf indeed !!!

c0rk3r

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I find a lot of atheists extremly annoying. Any reasonable, compassionate atheist would surely:
1. Consider that religion may exist to help people cope with death, heart break, stress, humdrum life, mild depression.
2. Consider the simple question:
Is it better that someone enages in religion and finds on outlets for these dilemas or suffers them so that their outlook in life is more logical?
3. Or consider this simple question:
Amist a fantasy hypotheisis, most religions have some sort of moral framework a lot of which any ethical person would commend. Now you don't need religion to be moral, but if it helps morally weak people behave with more moral responsibility with little cost to the tax payer, surely it is a net benefit to society.
4. Yes extreme fundamentalism is extremly annoying, a threat to society, scientific progression and world saftey. But mild religion is not. We would be better off making an alliance with mild religion to get rid of extreme fundamentalism.

Dawkins would be better off making an alliance with all religious people who accept Darwinian evolution and this would really show how stupid the fundies are.

Right now, I am beginning to get very skeptical of Dawins, Hitchens brigade. They are just shouting the same mantra and are reaping in the €€€ and the $$$.

If a reasonable, liberal Church got that money. Poor people would at least get some of it.

Do we want a compassionate world or everyone knowing the rebuttal to the ontological argument?

This is why i dislike alot of athiests also.

Reminds me of the placebo effect. How can a pharmacologically inert compound have a theraupetic effect if it doesnt contain a biologically active drug material ? The mere power of suggestion and belief is enough for people to overcome an illness.

A young Seattle cardiologist named Leonard Cobb conducted a unique trial of a procedure then commonly used for angina, in which doctors made small incisions in the chest and tied knots in two arteries to try to increase blood flow to the heart. It was a popular technique—90 percent of patients reported that it helped—but when Cobb compared it with placebo surgery in which he made incisions but did not tie off the arteries, the sham operations proved just as successful. Theres countless other examples: pain, depression, some heart ailments, gastric ulcers and other stomach complaints

funneh how the mind works. Do you think doctors should stop prescribing placebos?

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It's almost like they're printing articles they think their readers would be interested in reading ! wtf indeed !!!

how many dawkins is hitler articles do we need, its the same as all the rest of them. I can't think of any time when one person has been given parts of two pages of the newspaper to write over-opinionated drivel on two consecutive days can you?

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

Yep. There are works of literature out there that have a moral message vastly superior to anything written in the bible (new or old testament)

That's debatable. However there are many books that encourage you to think of morality. I for one often look to philosophers to see different viewpoints on things. However superior to the Bible? Definitely not in my opinion.

JC 2K3

Well in fairness, you are a Christian.

Rev Hellfire

Jakkass wrote: »

That's debatable. However there are many books that encourage you to think of morality. I for one often look to philosophers to see different viewpoints on things. However superior to the Bible? Definitely not in my opinion.

It can equally be argued that the bible encourages you to act in an immoral manner (by the tenets of today’s society), it’s really no better or worse than any other book of faith.

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

Original article in the Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

It's awful, but a very good example of the current batch of anti-atheist writing out there, a combination of bitterness, name-calling, appeals to authority, convoluted writing and wishful thinking.

John Gray is an atheist.

Rev Hellfire

lostexpectation wrote: »

how many dawkins is hitler articles do we need, its the same as all the rest of them. I can't think of any time when one person has been given parts of two pages of the newspaper to write over-opinionated drivel on two consecutive days can you?

tbh I don't read it as an anti-dawkins article, what gives you the idea its specifically about him and his theories? I'll admit since I’m not a fan of his particular arguments I don’t see that way.

Either way I would have thought that what is essentially an article from an atheist stance would have been welcomed in more in this forum, cult of dawkins aside

philologos

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It can equally be argued that the bible encourages you to act in an immoral manner (by the tenets of today’s society), it’s really no better or worse than any other book of faith.

That would be superb if I believed in a moral Zeitgeist. However I do believe that the Gospel is the truth, a bit difficult perhaps to undermine it as a Christian.

Dave!

Jakkass I don't for a minute believe that you believe the Bible is the best source of morality in the world. Keeping many slaves nowadays?

How could you possibly not believe in a moral zeitgeist? It is even demonstrated in the Bible! Old Testament god is into killing and genocide, then Jesus comes along a few hundred years later and starts preaching about love and hugs and thou shalt not kill and all of that good stuff. There's a clear contrast between the two.

The Bible also clearly endorses slavery, and why wouldn't it? The institution of slavery was still going strong worldwide in the 16th and 17th centuries. You won't find many nowadays though.

iUseVi

If you think it would be impossible to improve upon the 10 commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures… The Jain patriarch Mahavira surpassed the Bible with a single sentence: “Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.” Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept? P23

From Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

That would be superb if I believed in a moral Zeitgeist. However I do believe that the Gospel is the truth, a bit difficult perhaps to undermine it as a Christian.

Hence the futility of your earlier post.

You can't argue over which book is the best moral guide in existance when you have no reason except "I just believe it's the truth".

philologos

DaveMcG wrote: »

Jakkass I don't for a minute believe that you believe the Bible is the best source of morality in the world. Keeping many slaves nowadays?

How could you possibly not believe in a moral zeitgeist? It is even demonstrated in the Bible! Old Testament god is into killing and genocide, then Jesus comes along a few hundred years later and starts preaching about love and hugs and thou shalt not kill and all of that good stuff. There's a clear contrast between the two.

The Bible also clearly endorses slavery, and why wouldn't it? The institution of slavery was still going strong worldwide in the 16th and 17th centuries. You won't find many nowadays though.

You probably won't appreciate this, but the Old Testament was rather ahead of it's time in relation to slaves rights. Hmm, let me deal with your question. The Bible was a continuous revelation from the time of Moses until the final letters of John and the Revelation. From the moment that the Bible was sealed if you will by John's writing until the present moment I don't believe there is a moral Zeitgeist no.

Yes, we should take into account of the Law of Moses in regard to the areas by which God revealed to us His final stance on them through Jesus Christ. i.e death penalty among other things, don't stand due to Christ's revelation of it, taking revenge / eye for an eye also has to be taken into consideration.

iUseVi: There is far more to the Bible than the 10 commandments, infact there are over 20 commands in the Sermon of the Mount alone.

iUseVi

You probably won't appreciate this, but the Old Testament was rather ahead of it's time in relation to slaves rights.

Even if this were the case, shouldn't the moral structure derived from God, who is supposed to be the very essence of goodness be, well, perfect?
The fact that the view on slavery nowadays is ahead of what your God permits should probably worry you. I know it did me when I was a "Christian".

His final stance on them through Jesus Christ. i.e death penalty among other things, don't stand due to Christ's revelation of it, taking revenge / eye for an eye also has to be taken into consideration.

Sort of repeating myself, but final stance?? Why does God's view on what is morally right change?

iUseVi: There is far more to the Bible than the 10 commandments, infact there are over 20 commands in the Sermon of the Mount alone.

Of course you are right. But these commandments were considered so important that God wrote them himself. (apparently)

On stone tablets no less, kept in a position of honour in the ark of the convenant, etc, blah, blah blah.

Surely you can agree that God put special emphasis on these commandments.

philologos

iUseVi wrote: »

Ev
Of course you are right. But these commandments were considered so important that God wrote them himself. (apparently)

On stone tablets no less, kept in a position of honour in the ark of the convenant, etc, blah, blah blah.

Surely you can agree that God put special emphasis on these commandments.

Hang on, surely you should know that if we are Trinitarian in relation to the Godhead, the Sermon of the Mount is also of God?

iUseVi wrote: »

Even if this were the case, shouldn't the moral structure derived from God, who is supposed to be the very essence of goodness be, well, perfect?
The fact that the view on slavery nowadays is ahead of what your God permits should probably worry you. I know it did me when I was a "Christian".

It works perfectly, if all are willing to obey in his command. The word slave was also used for labourer, and the slave masters were encouraged to treat those working for them with respect. Secondly, slave isn't exclusive to the Old Testament, Paul refers to slaves several times in his letters.

Dave!

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

exodus 21:20-21

Well at least you have to respect them enough not to kill them :rolleyes:

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote:

Hang on, surely you should know that if we are Trinitarian in relation to the Godhead, the Sermon of the Mount is also of God?

Ok I see where you are coming from. But the sermon of the mount was well over 1000 years after Moses received the ten commandments.

So for this lengthy period, God (Trinity, whatever) just kept his real moral views a secret. Why wait for Jesus and the sermon of the mount to change his mind and update his views?

Jakkass wrote:

It works perfectly, if all are willing to obey in his command. The word slave was also used for labourer, and the slave masters were encouraged to treat those working for them with respect. Secondly, slave isn't exclusive to the Old Testament, Paul refers to slaves several times in his letters.

Ok this is clearly not the case in most uses of the word. This is obvious from the context at least. Please see:

Exodus 21:7
Leviticus 25:44-46
Deuteronomy 20:10-11

There are plenty others! You've gotten me into a theological debate. Congratulations!

Dudess

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I find a lot of atheists extremly annoying. Any reasonable, compassionate atheist would surely:
1. Consider that religion may exist to help people cope with death, heart break, stress, humdrum life, mild depression.
2. Consider the simple question:
Is it better that someone enages in religion and finds on outlets for these dilemas or suffers them so that their outlook in life is more logical?
3. Or consider this simple question:
Amist a fantasy hypotheisis, most religions have some sort of moral framework a lot of which any ethical person would commend. Now you don't need religion to be moral, but if it helps morally weak people behave with more moral responsibility with little cost to the tax payer, surely it is a net benefit to society.
4. Yes extreme fundamentalism is extremly annoying, a threat to society, scientific progression and world saftey. But mild religion is not. We would be better off making an alliance with mild religion to get rid of extreme fundamentalism.

Dawkins would be better off making an alliance with all religious people who accept Darwinian evolution and this would really show how stupid the fundies are.

Right now, I am beginning to get very skeptical of Dawins, Hitchens brigade. They are just shouting the same mantra and are reaping in the €€€ and the $$$.

If a reasonable, liberal Church got that money. Poor people would at least get some of it.

Do we want a compassionate world or everyone knowing the rebuttal to the ontological argument?

c0rk3r wrote: »

This is why i dislike alot of athiests also.

Reminds me of the placebo effect. How can a pharmacologically inert compound have a theraupetic effect if it doesnt contain a biologically active drug material ? The mere power of suggestion and belief is enough for people to overcome an illness.

A young Seattle cardiologist named Leonard Cobb conducted a unique trial of a procedure then commonly used for angina, in which doctors made small incisions in the chest and tied knots in two arteries to try to increase blood flow to the heart. It was a popular technique—90 percent of patients reported that it helped—but when Cobb compared it with placebo surgery in which he made incisions but did not tie off the arteries, the sham operations proved just as successful. Theres countless other examples: pain, depression, some heart ailments, gastric ulcers and other stomach complaints

funneh how the mind works. Do you think doctors should stop prescribing placebos?

Well fine. But isn't the above just one big acknowledgment that god does not exist (well the benevolent god of christianity anyway) and is instead a make-believe, fantasy character that brings comfort to people in times of woe?

The guy

Good section:

Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.