I Really Can’t Think Up Any Witty Titles
Basically this is about a horrible ‘essay’ I guess you might call it, that was written by some man I’ve never heard of ‘Peter Lewis’ and was published in the British paper, the daily mail. The essay was entitled “Won’t Anyone Stand Up For God”, No prizes for guessing what it is about.
Firstly, a link to the article Here
Just as much carnage has been committed for the sake of nationalism or racism. And atheism: the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, both atheist, were responsible for murder on an even greater scale. It is a mistake to attribute to religion itself the behaviour of some of its extremist adherents.
Now lets look at this, when the suicide bomber walks in to a crowded area and blows himself up, why is he doing it? Because he believes that his religion will give him paradise and 72 virgins etc. Religion is the motivation for the crime. Did Hitler think ‘Im going to gas all those jews because they believe in god and I don’t?” No. Anyone who thinks that the idea of atheism being the motivation for the horror that Stalin and Hitler caused is a moron. Atheism, unlike religion, is not a life plan, but I’ll get on to that later.
Second.
The next prong of the attack is on the Scriptures. Hitchens is a far better informed critic than Dawkins, whose book declines in places into near-hysterical propaganda.
Dawkins hating, boo hoo, join the line. This guys credibility has already gone out of the window. Personal attacks, fallacious statments. What a joke
The next few paragraphs, he tends to go wandering on some random thought pattern, makes no sense really. Seems to be losing the point of his article all together. Might as well be a review of Hitchen’s book, it references it so much.
That is why such huge, basic questions asked by our ancestors are still being raised: Why are we here? Why is the universe? As the philosopher Leibniz put it most starkly: ‘Why is there something, rather than nothing?’
Science cannot answer ‘why’ questions, only ‘how’ questions. The explanation of how we got here is currently Darwin’s evolution of species by random mutation and natural selection. Only the wilfully blind would reject that - but we still want to know why it started.
Now here, he seems to go off in to the great ‘meaning of life’ saga. Life has no meaning. If you want to look at in a truly Darwinian sense, the only meaning of life is to procreate, and pass on our genes. Life has no meaning, but we, as humans can bring meaning to it. We aren’t born with a specific purpose (other than to breed) we make meaning ourselves, and anyone who needs that done for them, is not worthy of living.
As for the other great question - what is the point, or purpose, of it all? - the current answer from science is that there isn’t one. Dawkins again: ‘The universe has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’
True.
So atheism is a belief in pointlessness
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
I actually said that as I read it, but not as dramatically as the caps might indicate. Yet another misguided fool, who is attempting to write about something he clearly knows nothing about, and it is not even as if there is anything to know. Atheism is one thing, and one thing only. It is not a great rule book, it is not a guide on how to live your life, it is not a life plan. It is one belief, and one belief only, anyone, can be an atheist, as long as they believe in one thing; There are no gods, and never have been. Thats it, simple as that, disbelief in any kind of gods. And this is, yet again, some kind of attack he is trying to launch on atheism, poor man.
Atheists have to face the conundrum: why do so many people believe in God when there is no God to believe in?
When I got to this point in the article, I actually believed it was a joke, I can’t believe anyone would write as many stupid things as he has done, and actually want it to be published.
Without faith - belief beyond evidence - life would be unlivable. Imagine taking a journey without faith - faith in an unknown driver, faith that there will not be an accident. You would never leave home.
Faith in your fellow man, and faith in the idea of a god are two different things. One kind of faith can certainly exist without another.
And there are tons more idiotic paragraphs, read it yourself and see!
To close; This guy, is the kind of theist that pisses me off most, the people that hold the middle ground, that are clearly intelligent enough to see that the bible is not the word of god, nor is all of it true, But feel the need to press the idea and theory of a creator, and in the process, feel that criticizing atheism is the way of doing that.
You aren’t clever, you aren’t funny, you aren’t aritculate, you aren’t any good at writing.
Quit while you still have your digni… oh wait.
While I’m not going to go through and reply to each quote, I do think that even though this essay isn’t well-written, it’s not completely wrong. There are some parts which are just obviously..yeah..
“Just as much carnage has been committed for the sake of nationalism or racism. And atheism: the Nazi and Stalinist regimes, both atheist, were responsible for murder on an even greater scale. It is a mistake to attribute to religion itself the behaviour of some of its extremist adherents.”
Hitler actually wasn’t an Atheist and I don’t know where he got that idea from. “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (Children, kitchen, church) was the slogan of the Womens’ Socialist Organisation during the Third Reich. Also, Stalin is an example of an ideology which rested more on the shoulders of totalitarianism, not atheism. Atheism was actually a large part of the USSR though and it’s hard for me personally to tell you to what extent Atheism itself was responsible (if responsible) for the oppression of millions of people who were denied the right to attend churches.
“Without faith - belief beyond evidence - life would be unlivable. Imagine taking a journey without faith - faith in an unknown driver, faith that there will not be an accident. You would never leave home.”
You say that faith in your fellow man can exist without faith in god, but some people believe that faith in each other comes from faith in the divine. The belief that god made man to be “good” and he is bad by choice. The point of view differs on opinion.
Which brings me to the point that Theism relies on peoples’ different perspectives on the “saga” of the meaning of life and why we’re here. I personally believe that the author is correct in saying that science explains the “how” not the “why”. But, he makes the mistake in trying to answer the “why” by attacking other people’s beliefs. Attacking other people’s beliefs is something that is done by both sides, and it never really solves any problems.
“You say that faith in your fellow man can exist without faith in god, but some people believe that faith in each other comes from faith in the divine. The belief that god made man to be “good” and he is bad by choice. The point of view differs on opinion.”
I think faith, in your fellow man is something that can exist perfectly well without faith in the divine. The guy in the article is pretty much treating it as if faith in god is the be all and end all in life, and that if you have no faith in him, life will just fall apart in every way.
Why people need something that can’t be proven to moderate their morality and behaviour is beyond me, they must be pretty weak minded people.
If by whatever miracle, it was proved there was no god (which, I know will never happen, lets just consider it hypothetically) do you really expect every former hardcore Christian and Muslim and Jew to just go on criminal rampages? And break all of the laws laid down by their religion?
Self control, and respect, can both easily exist without any proof or presence from the ‘divine’