The Radical, Intellectual Roots of the Eugenics Movement
Devastating, brilliant, and brief review of a museum exhibit in Ottawa, in Canada’s National Post. I am cheating the Fair Use reaper by quoting this bit, but there’s more and it’s all must read, and probably worth e-mailing around:
The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. …
A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were “people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition”, including “the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow.” Christians would also “have to go” as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of “preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence” of the mentally and physically handicapped. “This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved.”
The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot….
Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race.
And by then the reviewer, Michael Coren, is just getting warmed up…he hasn’t even gotten to Margaret Sanger yet.
We live now in the world these radicals made. And their are still plenty of people ready to do their work. Some of them are ideologues, but many of them are simple opportunists:
Bertha Pinedo Bugarin, who faces similar charges in Los Angeles, is accused of telling women that she was a doctor, performing abortions on them and prescribing drugs. One woman had to be rushed to a hospital with life-threatening complications, prosecutors said.
“This defendant preyed on women in the Hispanic community,” said San Diego County Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis. “By passing herself off as a doctor, she put these women’s lives in serious danger.”…
At one point, Bugarin ran six abortion clinics in Southern California, advertising them on Spanish-language television. If convicted on all counts, she faces more than nine years in prison, prosecutors said.
But if we have not yet evolved enough as the old radicals would have us do, remember that the Lightworker is there to “help us to evolve” even more.
_______________
{Post by See-Dubya. H/T to American Digest.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The DaleyGator » Blog Archive » Eugenics- a historical look into the face of evil
- The Greatest Canadian Indeed « Unclemeat
- Socialists made eugenics fashionable [Karl]
- Michelle Malkin » Margaret Sanger: old-skool eugenicist, Obama’s hero
- June, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Pundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist Remarks
I actually agree with right4life here. If you’re an atheist but still moral, odds are it’s intellectual sloppiness on your part. Our social moral conventions don’t make any sense if there’s no God. One can’t say that there’s no such thing as a moral atheist, but it doesn’t make any sense that atheist morality should look very much like religious morality. If you want to be a good moral atheist, you ought perhaps to read some Camus. Alternatively, if you want a different atheist ethic, read Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality.
I think you need to distinguish between thinking evolution / natural selection happened and an atheistic reading of history. That is, evolution makes the latter easier, but it hardly necessitates. Evolution does not present a challenge to a belief in the orderedness of the universe. You seem to be decently-educated; I’m sure you’re familiar with the classic arguments for God, right? These arguments (especially the ontological and teleological arguments of Anselm and Thomas respectively) rely on the intelligibility and ordered-ness of the universe. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all of the scientific arguments for evolution were convincing to you; would that in any way contradict the ordered-ness or intelligibility of the universe? It may seem to contradict the ordered-ness of the universe and the teleological argument, but it doesn’t. There is nothing about evolution that precludes it being a mechanism toward an end. There is no reason to view evolution as a challenge to belief in God; it is only very silly views of history and nature that presume to be based on evolution that present challenges.
Here’s a little shorter article about H.G. Wells and his wonderful outlook on life, for those interested in further reading.
It’s wrong? Says who?
zeroangel
Except that human empathy and social order are for the most part learned behavior. Juvenile deliquents would be few and far between otherwise.
jroberts:
Perhaps we need to clarify what is the definition of God here.
Camus (from wiki):
OK, I really think we need a definition of the word “God” here.
angryoldfatman:
The jury is still out on just how much of empathy is learned behavior and what is genetic. In any case though, “learned behavior” from social norms doesn’t have to come from “God”, they are also (in a sense) “evolved.” I will also admit, religion has played a role in that evolution. However, just because morals and religion are intertwined does not mean that God must exist.
Should exist and DOES exist are different things.
Atheling:
Says me, and millions of other people.
A while back I did a paper defending my faith and this was one of my points (with a nod to Dinesh D’Sousa). The nut of it is in the final paragraph.
4) Atheism, not Christianity or even religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history.
During the Spanish Inquisition (1478 to 1834), which was by far the biggest and worst, up to 5,500 people were executed, some of them in horrific ways. over a span of 356 years.
During the Salem Witch Trials, despite the impression left by Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible only 23 people were executed in 1692-3.
Under Stalin at least 25 million people were murdered by the state in the early to late part of the 20th Century.
Under Tito roughly 1 million people were murdered in the middle of the 20th Century
Under Mao at least 65 million people were murdered by the state in the middle of the 20th Century.
The Communists of North Korea murdered between 1.6 & 4 million people from 1948 to present day.
Under Castro between 75 & 150,000 people were murdered from 1959 to present day
The Khmer Rouge murdered between 2 & 3 million Cambodians in the 1970’s.
Ethiopian Communist murdered between 250,000 & 1.2 million in the 1970’s and 80’s.
The body count of Christianity is in the thousands or tens of thousands and occurred hundreds of years ago. No one fears another Christian Inquisition. The body count of Atheism is in the millions or tens of millions and still continues today.
You will hear the atheist reply that while the religious crimes were committed in the name of religion the atheists crimes were not committed in the name of Atheism. However atheism is basically meta-physically rooted in abstract Darwinism. In Richard Weikart’s book From Darwinism to Hitler he showed that Nazism is derived from two main philosophical beliefs; Social Darwinism (sterilization, selected breeding, etc.) and Nietzsche’s self-empowering atheism. During the early 1930’s the Communists and Nazi’s in Germany clashed multiple times, not over ideology, but over recruitment of the same group of like minded people. All you have to do is open up the works of Marx – “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” – to see that atheism isn’t incidental to Communism, but an intrinsic part the ideology. The idea is to create a ‘new man” liberated from traditional religion and traditional morality.
Another reply an atheist might make is to include ALL religions in that body count (not just Christian) and then also consider what the body count might be if say, Islamic fundamentalists got ahold of a nuclear weapon.
Or maybe its a combination of the aforementioned replies. In any case, body counts are usually a questionable argument.
I could agree with that, except for the many pronouncements from evolutionists denying God, morals, etc.
Why should anyone listen to you? Why should anyone follow something simply because “millions” believe it? Many people believed that it was okay to murder Jews during the Holocaust (and still believe it today); should that be the guiding principle of conduct? And should it be based on opinions?
Your weak argument is simply solipsism, which is a form of navel gazing.
Our founding fathers understood that the FOUNDATION of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is divinely ordained, and therefore inalienable. Your way of thinking is illogical and faulty, and unfortunately, very common. Sorry, but I’ll take Thomas Jefferson’s word over yours anyday:
BTW, millions of Muslims believe that it is their duty to kill the unbeliever.
By your reasoning, that makes their belief correct and right.
Why shouldn’t anyone? A sense of what is right and wrong is a developed concept over many years of people listening to one another and working out what is best for humankind as a whole. The better ideas have prevailed (its bad to rob people), the worse ones have been defeated (killing Jews is OK).
Thomas Jefferson was a progressive, a deist, lived in a time before Darwin (thus lacked any explanation for life), and (in the dirty politics of the time) was accused of being an atheist.
A whole bunch of other folks disagree. My reasoning is not that the more people believe something the more right it is. My reasoning is that, over time, the most advanced and civilized nations have worked out (through rational dialouge) what is moral.
zeroangel:
How are these for definitions of God?:
The Prime Mover. The First Cause. The Necessary Being. The Greatest Being. The Intelligent Designer.
You might want to check out Thomas Aquinas’ Five Proofs for the Existence of God. In that he borrowed from Aristotle and Plato, and lays out very logical explanations in support for the existence of a Supreme Being.
Here’s a link to one of many sites which examines those five proofs:
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2–00.HTM
or here:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html
I’d be interested to know if you can refute any of them.
I’ve always thought that the way planned parenthood operated was not in the best interest of it’s patients and was providing a service to feed yet another one of their services..talk about conflict of interest! Meaning, here you go in and they counsel you towards abortion (yes they do for those who deny this happens and I do know this from years experience) and they conveniently provide abortions at some of their clinics. They hand you some sheet of others in the area but they put theirs in big bold letters and much bigger than the other ones and highlight the prices and slightly undercut. They also tell the patient that the other ones don’t really have good anethetic to scare them off from other clinics.
They also have questionable doctors or ethics because there are a number of “diseases” they say someone has and some of those people have turned right around and went to a private ob/gyn’s office just to find out their pap smear and testing was fine. When the planned parenthood was told of this “new test” within 2 days of theirs, they scoff and ignore. They don’t even try to troubleshoot why. Makes you wonder.
I also know that they have “diagnosed” some people with a “sexual disease” without a test showing this just to find out that it was something completely unrelated that another private doctor found through additional testing and in one case, it was a simple fix that was not even health related. One person I know was diagnosed with syphilis without any test showing they had it. They did this based on the patient only being on birth control but having the complaint that their hair was falling out. This person then was having their hair done and happened to mention the hair issue of falling out. The hair stylist checked the hair over and said well I’m seeing that it’s actually not your full hair to the root coming out but bottom half is getting cut off. Are you perhaps sleeping on it? That person was in fact sliding their hair up half way and sleeping on it, cutting it in half. Planned parenthood was notified of this and they scoffed and insisted that the person had a hard to detect case of syphilis.
Planned parenthood is flat scary in how they operate. They hide under the guise of helping women but they put more women in danger imo with their terrible quality of health care. The examples above aren’t something you see in statistics, they are what you see if you keep eyes and mind open when you see planned parenthood in real life practice.
God forbid women speak out against planned parenthood for doing this stuff. They are often ridiculed and lied about to the point of silence.
Who decides who is “advanced” and “civilized”? Again, what is your “foundation” for such a description? You have no basis.
zeroangel:
Your Jefferson quote does not support your argument. He is merely pointing out that the basis of their “virtue” is not love of God, and that it is something else. (I submit that they are simply living on the moral interest of their ancestors). I would venture to say that their “virtue” may be the “egoism” that Jefferson described in the quote I provided earlier.
Atheling:
I have read all 5 proofs. I am very familiar with the arguements.
If you consider that space-time itself came into being at the Big Bang the need of a Prime-mover, First cause, etc. disappears.
Indeed, as easily as one says “God always existed and will exist forever” one can say the same thing about the initial state of the universe. Especially, if its true time itself didn’t “exist” in the “begining.”
In fact, I could say, “The Big Bang is God.” The universe itself fits Aquinas’ proofs.
As for the Intelligent Designer: Consider human beings see order in all things. Just because we percieve order does not mean it was designed. Like a bubble forming into a sphere. It is simply following natural (not super-natural) laws.
Atheling:
If we pursue this discussion about what is “advanced” and “civilized” I’m certain it will devolve into semantics. A wholly useless pursuit IMHO.
I maintain that if we are even to have a discussion we are going to have to agree on some definitions.
On that note:
What was the “ultimate moral authority’s” position on slavery in 1776 in the US?
I am not sure I disgree. Please explain what you mean by this.
Atheling:
An afterthought:
How does this “ultimate moral authority” communicate his/her morality to you?
Furthermore, how do you know that the “Allah” of Muslim fundamentalists is not in fact the actual “authority?”
Huh? I’m sorry but that sentence makes no sense to me. Please explain.
Don’t you understand? You have no foundation for anything you say! You use the term “advanced”, yet if there is no “foundation” for morality (or anything, for that matter), then what is the foundation of the adjective “advanced”? What makes something “advanced”? There must be a foundation underlying the meaning of things.
Is it “advanced” to stone adulterers? You say “no”. The Muslim says “yes”. Since there is no basis for morality except for opinion, then anyone can claim that they are holding the correct opinion!
Gladly, though I must admit, I am a bit shaky on it myself. Relativity / Black Holes / Big Bang can get a bit weird but I’ll give it a go:
Scientist’s know (from various actual tests) that Einstein’s theories work very well. We know that when one approaches the speed of light time speeds up or slows down (depending on your POV). This is special relativity. We also know that the same is true when approaching a large mass. This is general relativity.
As I understand it: the condensed state of the universe at the beginning of time would seem to suggest that time itself “speeds” to near infinite speeds. Now, you really have to apply quantum physics to really describe this state, and there is ongoing research into this area. Indeed, what went on “before” the Big Bang is an active area of study today. In any case, as a consequence of this, one can say that there really isn’t such a thing as “time” 13 billion years ago. Its tough to wrap your head around, but wiki has some good stuff on relativity, I suggest starting there. In essence, time and space are kind of the same thing.
As far as a basis for morality: as I said above (I guess you posted this before you read it), how do you know the Muslim fundamentalist “absolute authority” isn’t right?
On June 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm, zeroangel said:
Atheling:
Good questions.
I believe in the moral authority of the same God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses, and who commanded Moses to write his laws for his Chosen People to follow. Those Ten Commandments are the moral bedrock for a civilized society.
We can trace the history of that relationship in the Old Testament, and can also understand the deeper meaning of God’s relationship with man, and his revelation of who he is, by the person and teachings of Christ. I use reason and my fully informed conscience to extrapolate the essence of those Commandments and the life of Christ as guidance in application to the many questions and ethical dilemmas which we all face. Being a Roman Catholic, I rely on the Magisterium of the Church, which teaches me that morality, based on faith and reason, and forms my conscience.
As for your second question, the Muslim “Allah” is not the “actual authority” because the teachings and life of Mohammed are incongruent with the revelation and gospel of Christ. Christ warned of false prophets, and said “By their fruits shall you know them”, and I’m sure you are aware of the “fruits” of Islam, which are war, suffering, poverty, etc… Indeed, Islam contradicts Christian teachings in many ways because they violate basic Judeo Christian tenets such as free will, rationality (Islam claims that Allah transcends reason, whereas Christianity claims that God cannot be unreasonable, therefore he must abide within reason), and forgiveness, etc…
By “moral interest”, I mean that the “moral bank account” of our ancestors is passed on to the next generation, who, although may possess a knowledge of right and wrong, still do not understand or accept the foundation of morality, which is God. Each and every generation “spends” on that account, but said account is not replenished because the foundation is being destroyed.
By the rampant, degenerate and violent actions we see committed on a daily basis in our society, I think you can agree that the “moral interest” of our ancestors is truly bankrupt. Its renewal and replenishment necessitates a deeper understanding of and adherence to the moral law given to us by the same God I refer to in my first answer.
zeroangel:
Okay, I see what you are saying about Big Bang, etc… but I do not understand how that can eliminate a First Cause, as you claim.
Atheling:
Don’t you see though, that your argument about why the Abrahamic God is the true “absolute moral authority” is also your opinion?
An opinion you share with many others, just as I share an “opinion” that robbery is wrong with you (and many others).
Philosophies similar to those laid out in the Ten Commandments are not unique to Christianity.
As I was hinting at before: what was “God’s” position on slavery many years ago? Has it always been wrong and we just “discovered” it? Did God communicate it to us in some way and if so, why not sooner? Or is it that we humans have worked out over many years that its wrong because we have an evolved empathy?
As for morals being passed on from generation to generation: I agree, and it seems to me things are getting better, not worse.
Ref. the Big Bang: think of it this way, the universe doesn’t require a First Cause because the Big Bang itself WAS First Cause. Just as theists say God has been and always shall be, one can say the same of the Big Bang. This is why I referred to the Big Bang as “God” earlier. OK, I got some things to do, be back in about an hour or so.
Well, zeroangel, I guess it comes down to faith, which is a gift and cannot be purchased or earned. I have faith that the Old Testament and the many Jewish prophets speak the Truth about God, the Supreme Being. I also have faith that Christ is the Son of God, eternally begotten, not created, and his incarnation as man reveals the Truth about God and his laws, among other things. My belief that God is the ultimate authority is not based on opinion, it is based on my faith in him, and in his claim as the final moral authority. Christ himself said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life”. Yes, I believe his words, because Christ was either who he said he was, or a madman. I choose to accept the former, because there is nothing in his life or his teachings which indicates the latter.
Indeed, those moral laws are evident in Confucianism, and many pre Christian Greek and Roman laws. That does not negate the truth of those laws, in fact, they emphasize their veracity. The Church teaches that the moral law exists in all reasonable men because God planted those laws in their hearts. Another proof of God’s existence. The Creator made man in his own image and likeness, whether or not man recognizes his origins.
I think my previous paragraph addresses this question as well. God’s law is immutable, yes, however man’s understanding and application of those laws change as man grows in faith and reason. There is nothing in Scripture which actually condemns slavery, but slavery is immoral when a reasonable human being comes to the understanding that all human beings have inherent dignity and freedom given to them by their Creator. I am wary of using “empathy” as a means for morality. Many people can do immoral things based on misguided empathy, such as abortion, or euthanasia. I prefer reason based on moral law.
Back to slavery. Where did the idea of the inherent rights and dignity of the human person come from? And how does that apply to the issue of slavery?
We should recall that historically, the first Christians were Jews, and that the slavery which existed under Mosaic Law was radically different from that of pagan, i.e., Roman or Greek law. Unlike the Roman slave holders, Jewish slave holders were exhorted to pay their slaves just wages, and to refrain treating them with contempt. Under Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus, the Jewish slave owner valued and understood manual labor in ways which differed greatly from their pagan contemporaries. Christ himself was a lowly carpenter, which demonstrates that God himself is not below working with his hands.
Secondly, the spread of the new Christian faith included slaves and their owners, who were commanded by St. Paul in his letters to treat each other with duty, charity, and honorably. Paul and the apostles did not preach to overthrow slavery, as such a revolution could not be supported in that day and age, but by the 3rd century, Catholic Popes and Church Fathers, some of which were former slaves themselves (such as Callistus and Pius I), condemned slavery, although the State did not follow course. After all, Christianity was still underground and persecuted by the State for several centuries.
Sheesh, I want to finish my thoughts here, but I’m at work and can’t continue right now. Hopefully I’ll be back later if I have time this evening.
Ooops, I should have said that God is not above working with his hands, vice “below”.
Christ doesn’t have to be one of those two things.
I would say I am “culturally Christian.” In fact, I believe Christ was a excellent guy that had a great deal of good ideas. He, just as many others have, believed his ideas were divinely inspired. That isn’t so crazy, especially during those times.
Or perhaps Christianity emphasizes the truth of Zeus?
Of course, I would say, we evolved in that fashion. *smile* I would have the same thing to say about slavery (we evolved to realize it was wrong). Anyhow, I guess I already said that.
Many people do immoral things based on misguided morals in general. “Empathy” alone does not lead to morality. It’s reason, discussion, empathy, evolved thought, etc.
I any case, my only point from the beginning is my contention that so many of the arguments against atheists are inherently bigoted, ie, Atheists have no morals. I hope my point was well made. I am a decent person, I just happen not to believe in God. I also think that our founding fathers (certainly Jefferson) would be shocked and somewhat upset with the derision directed at atheists in American today.
This is likely where our discussion will no longer bear any fruits (once you get down to the “it comes down to faith” part). I would be happy to continue, but at this point I’d rather just agree to disagree. *smile*.
LGM has said on occassion that he thinks that people who are not perfect should have been aborted. I would disagree even if I was not a mother to an imperfect child. Yet, I would bet he would be the first to abort his own imperfect child.
Terrig:
I am curious, are you opposed to future applications of germ line gene therapy (assuming the technology becomes feasible)?
Wasn’t directed at me but I will answer anyhow. Yes, I am opposed to germ line gene therapy despite whatever perceived benefits you wish to claim from playing God.
There’s that damned Eugenics word again come full circle from the start of this thread.
P.S. He didn’t claim that His words and ideas were divinely inspired. He claimed to be God in the flesh, a perfect and sinless man come to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. A big difference.
There’s a shocker comparing Christianity with the false religions of ancient Greece. Nothing new under sun with atheists is there?
As I said earlier, we practice Eungenics in the US today on a small scale. No one seems to think blood tests for potential partners to screen for hereditary diseases is evil. The Reductio ad Hitlerum arguement only goes so far. It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. In the same vein, just because nuclear weapons are dangerous doesn’t mean nuclear power is.
To address the three points above:
1) Well, I did say “assuming the technology becomes feasible.”
2) Well, you aren’t really denying the potential child the choice of whether or not his/her DNA is modified. You are giving the parents the choice of whether thier DNA is modified. Besides, who would CHOOSE to want Tay-Sachs, for example?
3) As I said, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
To be fair, we don’t really know what Jesus claimed himself unless, of course, you take the Bible to be a wholly accurate account.
Of course, I contend that Christianity itself is another ancient false religion.
P.S. Atheling was the one to compare ancient Greek religion to Christianity, not me.
zeroangel,
Out of curiousity, are there tenets of other “ancient false religions” that you believe have value?
30 pcs:
Yes, without question. As I said, Jesus was a great guy with many excellent ideas and I consider myself “culturally Christian.”
I also think a great many other religions had good ideas, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, for example. The list is a great deal longer than that though, of course, because so many religions have rules about morality.
Unfortunately, the truth of their morality does not make their mythology true.
Why did you opt to be culturally Christian over being culturally Hindu or culturally Buddhist, etc.?
30 pcs:
Well, naturally I didn’t opt for it. I was raised that way.
You were raised and consider yourself culturally Christian and you are an atheist. You sir, befuddle me.
Good luck with all that.
I second the opinion by 30 pcs
alaskangrizzly / 30 pcs of silver:
How come it’s befuddling? I was raised Christian, went to Sunday school, and was confirmed. I was not raised in a madras, nor was I raised in a Buddhist monastery. I celebrate Christmas and Easter with family. Heck, I even go to church with my wife sometimes these days (admittedly its more for the food and friends from my POV). I am “culturally Christian.”
However, just because of all these things doesn’t mean I have to literally believe that Christ was the son of God, nor do I have to believe in a personal, creator God. Of course these conclusions came after I finished with Sunday school.
In the same sense, just because I talk about Santa Claus at Christmas time and think that gift giving and merry-making are fun doesn’t mean I believe that an eternal spirit / man in a red suit rides all over the world on Christmas Eve in a magical sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
As I said, the truth of morality of religion does not make it’s mythology true.
zeroangel,
Firstly, I never heard the term “culturally Christian” prior to your use of the term. So, I may have had a different definition in mind prior to your explanation. That being said, you seem to have reconciled your beliefs; however, from the outside looking in your approach doesn’t make very much sense. A culturally Christian atheist just seems so middle of the road. The people you attend church with have deeply held beliefs and a true love for God. You admittedly attend for food and fellowship…just seems wrong.
Secondly, your schtick about Jesus being a cool guy. That’s just so blasphemous and denigrating. It seems you like to go out of your way to mock others’ deeply held beliefs while being a little unsure of your own.
Lastly, your Santa Claus and God analogy is so way off base to answer to it will almost give it credence.
Again, your beliefs, your deal. Best of luck with that.
30 pcs:
Well, I hope you get my meaning of “culturally Christian.” It seems plain to me.
Ref. folks I attend church with. That may be true of many of them, that is, having a deeply held belief and a true love of God. I don’t think it’s true of all of them. I think many might have more of an idea of a “transcendental” more deist “God.” In fact, I learned recently from my brother, who had a conversation with our pastor from the church we grew up in (not the church I attend now), that this childhood pastor no longer believes in the virgin birth.
Another reason I attend church with my wife is to simply be with my wife. I have suggested perhaps looking into a Unitarian Universalist church. She is against it, as such, I am content to continue going to the church she wants to go to, it’s important to her, and that’s fine by me. I often enjoy the sermons, as I say, morality does not have to go hand in hand with mythology or dogma.
I am certainly not trying to mock your beliefs. I am simply trying to communicate my own to you all in the hopes that I can in some way illustrate how bigotry against atheists is unfounded. Imagine if I were not an atheist, let’s say I was a Buddhist, and I said the same thing, that is, I think Jesus was a great guy, but not the son of Buddha. Would you find that equally degrading and insulting, or would you be inclined to respect my belief on the topic? Trust me, I am secure in my beliefs.
The Santa Claus example was to illustrate how I feel about mythology in a general sense, again not to mock you.
My goal here is not to mock, but to try and be honest and have some kind of reconciliation among atheists and Christians. I suppose I simply cannot be honest about what I feel without offending some people. But then, again, I have to ask, would you be offended in the same way if I were Buddhist or Hindu or any other religion and said the same things? Also, since they are my beliefs and not your own, why would my perceived “mocking” even bother you?
zeroangel:
I did not compare Jesus with Zeus. That’s absurd. Zeus was never a historical person. Jesus is.
Secondly, your calling Jesus “a great guy” is disingenuous. Either Jesus is who he said he was, or a madman. No middle of the road there. And as for your saying that no one can really know what Jesus said, well, that’s more about your ignorance of the society and culture Jesus came from than about historical accuracy. If you know anything about Judaism at that time, you would know that they were a people who relied on the oral tradition. They did not have the luxury of a printing press, therefore they memorized the Torah and passed it on to the next generation. Like the ancient Greeks, they used mnemonic devices to help memorize text(especially with the use of music). Their ability to memorize and recite was far superior to ours in this age.
Secondly, you seem to ignore the fact that Jesus was crucified for blasphemy, i.e., he declared himself the son of God, which appalled the Pharisees. The used that as the reason to have the Romans crucify him. When he was questioned by Pilate and Herod, who both asked him if he was who he said he was, he did not respond. In a court of law, silence is construed as consent. Jesus did not refute the claim. Therefore, he stood by his statement.
I will address some other things you stated later, as I have work to do.
Atheling:
Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha) was a historical person too. Should I use Buddhism as an example instead of Zeus?
Anyhow, I didn’t say you compared Jesus with Zeus, I said you compared Christianity with the religion of the ancient Greeks. I realize you said “laws” not religion, I contend that they go hand in hand in that time. If I misinterpreted your meaning, then that’s my mistake. However, I still think it’s valid to ask, “Does ancient Greek or Roman laws emphasize the veracity of Christianity or is it the other way around?
Ref. the Biblical account of Jesus: do you believe it’s entirely accurate? Or do you believe there is room for embellishment and / or errors in this oral tradition? I still think one could claim to be the son of God in that time period and NOT be insane in this sense we know it today. There are many possibilities. Today, the pope sometimes claims to have things “revealed” to him by God. Is this insane?
Maybe in your circles but not in mine… either you are or you aren’t. Not a dig at you but my lack of familiarity with the term stems full-fledged belief that Jesus is the Son of God. No, half measures.
Not sure how this helps your point. Again, either you are or you aren’t.
Appreciate that; however, calling Jesus a great guy certain ruffles the feathers. I, for one have not attacked you for being an atheist. I wouldn’t have thrust myself into this thread were it not for your Jesus as a great guy statements. I believe above you argued that atheism is not a religion yet now you are comparing it to other religions. Yes. I would find it disrespectful because that statement doesn’t recognize my beliefs in a respectful way… and is the equivalent of saying – Buddha, what a joke, you pray to an image and expect your prayers to be ansered… more or less. definitely something along that line.
But that’s just it isn’t. You go out of your way to make people know just how much you think belief in God is silly. It’s downright disrespectful.
In the same that “I am simply trying to communicate my own to you all in the hopes that I can in some way illustrate how bigotry against atheists is unfounded.”
It is important to you that people have appropriate viewpoint of your position… well, same here.
30 pcs:
Well, I don’t think I can explain “culturally Christian” anymore.
This is the heart of the issue. As an atheist I can’t say anything good about Jesus, while being honest, without ruffling feathers. As you can imagine, it’s awfully frustrating.
I am not trying to compare atheism to other religions. I am just making the point that it seems to me, I could get away with saying Jesus was a great guy if I was any other kind of theist. Why does an atheist saying the exact same thing ruffle feathers while another theist wouldn’t?
Ref. recognizing beliefs in a respectful way. Again, this is the burden of the atheist. An atheist CANNOT be honest about why he or she is an atheist without saying somethings that might ruffle feathers. The common wisdom is that atheists should just shut up and keep it to themselves. However, its incredibly hard to keep it to yourself when folks (not you necessarily but folks in a general sense) constantly have less than flattering things to say about us. It’s especially annoying to me when aethists are equated with leftists, immorality, and such. Heck, I would have not thrust myself into this thread if it weren’t for all that talk.
I understand your position 30 pcs. It is impossible for me to honestly say that I am an atheist because I think religion is ancient mythology without offending people. Again, massively frustrating for me.
I guess I should have mentioned that the paper was written as a call to arms against militant atheists who are actively seeking to tear down Christianity and the morals therefrom.
If 1% of muslims are terrorists supported in some way by 24% of muslims and the other 75% of muslims do not denounce them they risk being painted with the same brush.
If 1% of atheists actively seek to destroy religion (and the moral code that comes from it) while 24% of atheists cheer them on, parroting their catch phrases and buzz-words (e.g. comparing Jesus to Zeus) and the other 75% look the other way then they also risk being painted with the same brush.
Does God exist? I don’t know, but I believe. An Atheist doesn’t know and doesn’t believe. The common part is we don’t know. The Atheist will argue he is a Champion of Reason and the Christian is only a Champion of Faith, but both of us are reasoning from the same collection of evidence. The difference is the atheist won’t admit it.
BTW You’re going to have to stop using the unicorn analogy.
KaosKlerik:
I think it should be obvious by now that I am not a militant atheist that seeks to tear down Christianity and the moral code that goes along with it.
I would also say the comparison of atheists to Muslims is a poor one since atheists aren’t blowing up churches and murdering church-going children. Painting “moderate Muslims” with the same brush in the sense that they are passively compliant to murder and terrorism is one thing. Saying “moderate atheists” are “passively compliant” in allowing other atheists to exercise free speech is silly.
My main problem is probably with fundamentalists. The Muslim variety seeks to kill me. The Christian variety seeks to impede scientific progress and learning (as an example). I have absolutely no issue at all with progressive Christians that do not take the Bible to be a literal truth. I have no problem with Deists either.
Or the lack thereof. I can admit that. I think Russell’s teapot is applicable here.
Santa Claus works fine for me.
zeroangel,
I wasn’t seeking any additional explanation for culturally Christian.
Additionally, I stated that I would be offended should a Buddhist refer to Jesus as a great guy… I provided an example of how I could possibly reduce Buddha’s importance and I would expect to be met with some resistance. I’m not sure this comes as a surprise to you.
If you cannot find a way to be respectful of Christianity as you would expect others to be respectful of your atheism… well….
30 pcs:
Let me make sure I understand you:
If a Buddhist told you he thinks Jesus is a great guy, this would offend you, correct?
If a Buddhist asked you your honest opinion of Siddhārtha Gautama, how would you reply?
Furthermore, is there anyway that I, as an atheist, could communicate to you that I believe Jesus was a good person but that he was only a person without offending you?
It’s the senitment behind that I take issue with. In Islam, they too, believe that Jesus was a great prophet but is not the Son of God. I disagree vehemently with that sentiment. Where religions converge I think most people try to be respectful of others beliefs regardless of whether or not agree. You don’t seem to have such tact.
I doubt that a Buddhist would ask such a question when it is revealed that I am a Christian.
That’s a great start – what you said right there.
30 pcs:
OK, I am somewhat confused here.
Is your issue with the word “guy”?
Here are my orignal quotes:
To me, that isn’t any different then:
In fact, I think saying he was an excellent guy is much nicer than saying he was a good person.
Perhaps it is because text is sterile but I must stress to you that I was trying VERY hard to be as polite as possible and still be honest.
Maybe not, just as it might not be so likely we would have this conversation in person when it’s revealed I am an atheist.
My point in bringing it up was to try and ask you how you would communicate to a Mahayana Buddhist that you don’t think Siddhārtha Gautama is the immortal supernatural Buddha (”God”) incarnate. How would this be done in an inoffensive manner? I think we have gotten thus far though.
I am not trying to poke at you, but don’t you think you are being a bit too sensitive here concerning your faith?
30 pcs:
Also, I realize this might come up:
How could I communicate to you in a polite and respectful manner that I believe religious mythology is akin to any other mythology?
Perhaps you are offended by my Santa Claus example? Should I be using Odysseus as an example instead?
zeroangel,
There are so many factors that would need to be taken into account. And I trying to witness to this person, are we just conversing and the topic of religion comes up, etc. It’s a delicate topic (religion) for sure. And it is wise to never trample on someone’s beliefs. Sorry, I don’t have a more straightforward answer for you.
No. No, I don’t think I am being sensitive. Again, I think it is all about the sentiment behind it. I can’t explain exactly; however, I believe alaskangrizzly summed it up rather nicely:
You would have to read his posts to see what it is that we mean.
Yes, I am offended by your Santa Claus analogy. Everyone knows that Santa is fictious; however, not everyone believes that God is… to equate the two is rather disingenuous.
zero, you can use which ever one you prefer. At this point we are just spinning our wheels. I’ve made my position clear on the matter. I understand yours. Let’s leave it at that.
30 pcs:
Alright. I am content to leave it alone. I do want to say though, I did not know Abstractmind was an atheist. I had suspected, but I was unsure.
As far as the believers on this forum, well, they are easy to spot. Many of them (I am not saying you) deride atheists often.
This is my concern though. For an atheist to be inoffensive, he/she has to be so careful with his/her statements that even other atheists wouldn’t recognize them as such.
In the course of being “respectful,” atheists are relegated to the “back of the bus.” Even just stating, “I am an atheist” is sometimes enough to irk people.
Heck, it was only 20 years ago that George Bush Senior said:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
He never retracted this statement.
zero,
I don’t know if he classifies himself as atheist. However, he will readily admit that he doesn’t have any love for religion.
This is true.
Isn’t saying I’m an atheist plenty?
Not sure what can be done about the inclusivity of this board or in general – how would you prefer people to approach you?
That’s just a stupid statement. Should he have retracted it, absolutely.
30 pcs:
Well, I don’t really mind how folks approach me on the topic of religion so much. I can, for example, debate just about any aspect of atheism / theism and not get offended. I quite like discussing Thomas Aquinas, for example. The name calling is trite, but it’s to be expected.
I guess one of my issues (and the reason I joined this thread) is the constant assertion that evolution = atheism = eugenics = holocaust, or other such things.
Also, the implication that atheist = fifth-column leftists = un-American is often espoused on this blog. I am sure a number of commenters probably share Bush senior’s sentiments. These folks are my target audience.
If I am tactless or insensitive to other folks in the course of trying to communicate why / how I do not believe in God, yet at the same time do have morals and am a patriot, it is not my intention. It just seems extremely difficult to make this case without treading so carefully that my message just becomes platitudes, ie: “well, I understand that I am an atheist and I have absolutely no grounds to debate the truth of Jesus Christ and God (or Buddha, or Yahweh, or Allah, etc.), but hey I am a good guy too!”
On top of that, anytime I make the assertion just by itself that, “Hey I am an atheist and I don’t think these comments are fair.” I inevitably get assaulted and am compelled to defend my position against folks that want to debate me on the logic of atheism; following that, when I try to debate (honestly) I am called insensitive.
I’ll try to be a bit more careful, but I won’t pull punches in trying to make a point whilst being assaulted with rhetoric of the same kind as Bush senior’s (again not from you).
Thank you for acknowledging that what Bush senior said was wrong.