Atheist author David Mills argues in this 47 minute video that there are ten reasons why we are approaching a "Golden Age of Atheism."
First posted on 6/6/07
33
comments:
Anonymous
said...
This might be true. But it's sort of like another British invasion this time headed by Dawkins and Hitchens. Since Britain has been pretty much destroyed by this atheism, the only logical step for it to take is to come to America.:-)
"Destroyed by this atheism"? The UK has its problems, but it still functions as a modern country with decent living standards from what I've read. American christians still readily go on vacation there (something they wouldn't do in god-poisoned countries like Iraq).
Anonymous, I don't think a society that worship its leaders is atheistic. A better example would be Sweden. Anyway it was you who gave the Britain example that you dismissed as soon as it was turned against you. That's so cowardly of you...
"officially atheistic"...meaning it's leaders don't worship some god? Then I guess that makes the USA "officially" christian? And just how are we here in the US better off than in the UK?
Atheism per se doesn't give us a "golden age." But it does provide an opportunity for accomplshing things that these primitive god-beliefs interfered with. Just removing the economic drain of religion alone would improve people's living standards. (Sam Harris points out the absurdity of post-Saddam Iraqis who use their limited resources to rebuild mosques, Islamic shrines & madrassahs at the expense of useful things like restoring their clean water supplies.)
Sir Isaac Newton predicted, by using the bible, that humans would have to travel 50 miles/hour in order to fulfill the prophecy of men travelling across the world quickly. However he was ridiculed by many scientists that the heart stops at 30 mph. Somehow the bible is always right. Also, hundred years ago, people were ridiculing revelation where it said that ALL would be able to see the antichrist arise from the dead. Seems pretty simple today right?
Sir Isaac Newton predicted, by using the bible, that humans would have to travel 50 miles/hour in order to fulfill the prophecy of men travelling across the world quickly. However he was ridiculed by many scientists that the heart stops at 30 mph. Somehow the bible is always right.
Where did you find this strange assertion? And what does it have to do with the bible?
Would you care to show us how you arrived at that conclusion?
1. List the conflicts that you're counting. 2. Show us how all of these conflicts are results of materialism. 3. Explain how atheism necessarily leads to materialism.
Of course, theistic critics of atheism want it both ways: They used to blame atheism for making communist regimes violent and warlike, and now they blame atheism for making Western Europe pacifist and "weak."
There are other places for arguing about communism. The question here is David Mills' argument that we are approaching a golden age of atheism. Atheism is certainly enjoying unprecedented publicity in the US. The long-term trends Mills identifies favour it. There are signs that revulsion against God-driven politics is driving the current interest in atheism.
But is this - and are his other points - enough to justify his claim? I'm not sure.
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
Fundies may talk about the end of the world, but atheistic scientists have made it possible!
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
I didn't know that all those scientists who build weapons of mass destruction in Muslim countries don't believe in god.
As for the relative handful of scientists in Western countries, atheistic or not, who've built weapons of mass destruction, they haven't done these things using their own money and on their own initiative, like Lex Luthor from the Superman comic books. Christian politicians have hired them and appealed to their patriotism to do these things. Meanwhile, other atheistic scientists like Carl Sagan have protested these arms races and argued for more peaceable ways of running the world. The problem lies with governments, often run by god-fearing men, not with unbelieving scientists.
So, mark plus, you are saying that Dawkins is lying when he says most scientists are atheists? (Of course, he DOES lie, about things like the NOTORIOUS Jewish lobby...p 4 and 44 of his deluded book...and Hitlers Jewish ancestry, but what the heck.)
As far as those scientists in Muslim contries buiding nuclear weapons, they are all western educated.
And you say Christians have hired these scientists to build these things.
And so the scientists do it?
For money?
Then those scientists are scumbags willing to sell out the human race for bucks?
If you put guns in the hangs of waring gangs, you share the guilt and your claims of superiority are in the trash.
So, mark plus, you are saying that Dawkins is lying when he says most scientists are atheists? (Of course, he DOES lie, about things like the NOTORIOUS Jewish lobby...p 4 and 44 of his deluded book...and Hitlers Jewish ancestry, but what the heck.)
As far as those scientists in Muslim contries buiding nuclear weapons, they are all western educated.
And you say Christians have hired these scientists to build these things.
And so the scientists do it?
For money?
Then those scientists are scumbags willing to sell out the human race for bucks?
If you put guns in the hangs of waring gangs, you share the guilt and your claims of superiority are in the trash.
Just to save most of you the pain of watching the video (I scanned through it at high speed): 1) Technology has removed philosophical isolation 2) Explosion of atheist books 3) Science has eliminated our "God of the Gaps" 4) Failure of Creation Science and Intelligent Design 5) Even believers are abandoning the Bible 6) Public disgust with God-driven politics 7) Less tolerance of discrimination 8) Perfect parallel between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalism 9) More people are seeking higher education 10) Scholars are recognizing that Jesus never existed
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
Why do scientists continue to develop new ways to fight disease, increase life expectancy, improve agriculture, predict weather, raise the quality of life, and explore the universe? Your argument doesn't make sense - science is not an ideology, atheism is not an ideology.
The refutation in experience of alternate views does not prove the truth of the Christian faith. This only establishes its relevance, after generations had assumed its irrelevance and regarded it as merely the remnant of a prescientific past. The fact is that the essentials of the Christian faith cannot he proved, as one proves either scientific propositions or metaphysical theories. For the basis of the Christian view is the presupposition that the mystery of the divine is disclosed, not so much in the permanent structures and essences of existence, as in historical disclosures of which the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the climax. The "agape" of Christ is thus the clue to the divine mystery which is encountered in creation on the one hand, and on the other hand is met at the outer limits of our consciousness, when the perennial dialogue within the self is felt to be transmuted into a dialogue between the self and a divine "other" who is always judging and forgiving the self.
How can the self prove that its encounters with such an "other" are real? Must not the encounter between selves, whether human or divine, be a matter of faith and love rather than rational proof? Is the Christian enterprise in any different position in a scientific age than it was in the classical metaphysical age, when it had to bear witness to the reality of a divine judgment and mercy of the God of whom the Bible spoke, as against the conception of Plato’s or Aristotle’s "god," who could be philosophically proved? In short, the proof that we encounter a God who is above the structures and forms of life and has a freedom at least as great as our own; that we do not merely face an ocean of mystery which is at the same time the fullness and the absence of being (as that mystery is described for us by the mystics)-the proof of such a reality must be the "witness" of a life.
Thus the Christian community, founded in a unique disclosure of God to those who are ready to receive it, is called upon to "witness" to the truth of Christ by the fruits which emerge from an encounter between the self and such a God as Christ revealed. "By their fruits ye shall know them," declared Jesus; and St. Paul defined the characteristic fruits by which we bear witness to the truth of Christ as "love, joy and peace." That is to say, the only effective witness of the truth of Christ is a life in which the anxieties and fears of life have been overcome, including the fear of death; in which the prison of self-love, of preoccupation with the self, its interests and securities, has been broken so that the self can live in "love, joy and peace." That is, be so free of anxieties as to enter creatively into the lives of others.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, atheism is:
1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods
Ideology is defined as:
1) The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2) A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
How is disbelief in the existence of God a body of ideas, or a set of doctrines or beliefs?
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological."
Because the religious leadership pays them good money to develop them.
Hi Stauffenberg and Anonymous Unlike you, an atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support.
Theology is mythology masquerading as philosophy [and brings discredit to philosophy]. Science and modern investigative research methods and higher textual criticism of the gospels are beginning to put religious claims, once considered as inviolable and inerrant, to the test, and rightly so, asking such questions as; "If the evidence clearly supports the historical accuracy of the gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?
Indeed it is time for atheism to properly claim its rightful position under the sun.
This video is entirely too shallow. People, atheism itself is not a thing; it is the absence of a thing. Perhaps the things that atheists do will lead to a golden age, but atheism proper is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.
And really, I see a problem with this: without a well-developed secular code of morals, widespread and sudden loss of religions could cause utter havoc. Let's face it: most people haven't got the brains or initiative to discover the seeds of morality in the emergent processes of evolution. Many of them are so weak-minded that they NEED religion to keep them moral.
And perhaps most importantly, many people who would fain call themselves atheist (Bill Gates for example) are actually worshipers of Mammon, that being, the almighty $CURRENCY.
I firmly believe that the problems people attempt to pin on atheists in this thread (wars, WMD, and so forth) are caused by people who DO have gods of a sort: fascist personality cults like Soviet Russia or North Korea is one example. Money worship is another, cf. the arms merchants and warmongers and oil barons in the US (many of whom would identify as Christian if asked--hah!).
Then there are those whose minds are like collapsed steel balls, and whose gods are their own shallow, untested, willfully-sheltered-from-reality ideologies. George W Bush, I'm looking at you, you pathetic fundamentalisc dry-drunk whackaloon.
>This video is entirely too shallow. People, atheism itself is not a thing; it is the absence of a thing.
Even atheists get this wrong. Atheism has a positive content analogous to veganism's. Vegans don't just disavow the exploitation of animals as a personal lifestyle choice, but the activists among them go further to attack the idea of basing a society on the exploitation of animals, while arguing for all the alleged advantages of the vegan alternative.
In other words, militant vegans behave like the New Atheists by arguing that carnivory poisons everything.
ONE HUNDRED MILLION DEAD...more than all the victims of all the wars in all of history.
And all victims of the funamentally atheistic philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What is God's responsibility for those hundred million deaths? Was he responsible for them because of an act of omission, because he declined to intervene to prevent them? Or was he responsible for them because of acts of commission, because he was the knowing "First Cause Uncaused" of everything (or indeed because he intervened directly in human affairs for the specific purpose of bringing them about)?
Since the human race began, there have been perhaps a hundred BILLION deaths -- all of them according to the will of God, correct?
@ Steinmaster, and everybody else who persists in thinking that anything can be proved by pointing to the alleged religion or atheism of Hitler, Stalin, et alii- you can't have this discussion without including the Taiping Rebellion, ethnic and class struggle at its finest. Wikipedia gives a perfectly adequate summary: "The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, against the ruling Qing Dynasty. About 20 million people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history." The body count goes to the religious, but I think the real culprit is megalomania. Power-hungry people use or deny religion as suits their very temporal aims.
33 comments:
This might be true. But it's sort of like another British invasion this time headed by Dawkins and Hitchens. Since Britain has been pretty much destroyed by this atheism, the only logical step for it to take is to come to America.:-)
"Destroyed by this atheism"? The UK has its problems, but it still functions as a modern country with decent living standards from what I've read. American christians still readily go on vacation there (something they wouldn't do in god-poisoned countries like Iraq).
But Britain is not an officially atheistic society.
Try going on vacaton to a society that is officially atheistis, like North Korea.
Anonymous, I don't think a society that worship its leaders is atheistic. A better example would be Sweden.
Anyway it was you who gave the Britain example that you dismissed as soon as it was turned against you. That's so cowardly of you...
"officially atheistic"...meaning it's leaders don't worship some god? Then I guess that makes the USA "officially" christian? And just how are we here in the US better off than in the UK?
"Try going on vacaton to a society that is officially atheistis, like North Korea."
Canadians go on vacation to "officially atheistic" Cuba all the time, and come home tanned & relaxed.
Atheism per se doesn't give us a "golden age." But it does provide an opportunity for accomplshing things that these primitive god-beliefs interfered with. Just removing the economic drain of religion alone would improve people's living standards. (Sam Harris points out the absurdity of post-Saddam Iraqis who use their limited resources to rebuild mosques, Islamic shrines & madrassahs at the expense of useful things like restoring their clean water supplies.)
Just an interesting thing:
Sir Isaac Newton predicted, by using the bible, that humans would have to travel 50 miles/hour in order to fulfill the prophecy of men travelling across the world quickly. However he was ridiculed by many scientists that the heart stops at 30 mph. Somehow the bible is always right. Also, hundred years ago, people were ridiculing revelation where it said that ALL would be able to see the antichrist arise from the dead. Seems pretty simple today right?
Sir Isaac Newton predicted, by using the bible, that humans would have to travel 50 miles/hour in order to fulfill the prophecy of men travelling across the world quickly. However he was ridiculed by many scientists that the heart stops at 30 mph. Somehow the bible is always right.
Where did you find this strange assertion? And what does it have to do with the bible?
Somehow the bible is always right.
A sampling of obvious Bible contradictions and factual errors:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
The Golden age of atheism: the 20th century.
ONE HUNDRED MILLION DEAD...more than all the victims of all the wars in all of history.
And all victims of the funamentally atheistic philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
A Pox on both your houses!
steinmaster,
Would you care to show us how you arrived at that conclusion?
1. List the conflicts that you're counting.
2. Show us how all of these conflicts are results of materialism.
3. Explain how atheism necessarily leads to materialism.
Then maybe your "argument" would have some force.
ONE HUNDRED MILLION DEAD...more than all the victims of all the wars in all of history.
Funny, nonbelief continues to grow in the 21st Century, and yet we continue to see trends that place more value on human life: A decline in capital punishment, a decline in violent conflicts (.pdf), more universal healthcare and so forth.
Of course, theistic critics of atheism want it both ways: They used to blame atheism for making communist regimes violent and warlike, and now they blame atheism for making Western Europe pacifist and "weak."
There are other places for arguing about communism. The question here is David Mills' argument that we are approaching a golden age of atheism. Atheism is certainly enjoying unprecedented publicity in the US. The long-term trends Mills identifies favour it. There are signs that revulsion against God-driven politics is driving the current interest in atheism.
But is this - and are his other points - enough to justify his claim? I'm not sure.
Here is a book to read. It is by Richard Wurmbrand. It is called "Marx & Satan".
More value on human life, mark pus?
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
Fundies may talk about the end of the world, but atheistic scientists have made it possible!
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
I didn't know that all those scientists who build weapons of mass destruction in Muslim countries don't believe in god.
As for the relative handful of scientists in Western countries, atheistic or not, who've built weapons of mass destruction, they haven't done these things using their own money and on their own initiative, like Lex Luthor from the Superman comic books. Christian politicians have hired them and appealed to their patriotism to do these things. Meanwhile, other atheistic scientists like Carl Sagan have protested these arms races and argued for more peaceable ways of running the world. The problem lies with governments, often run by god-fearing men, not with unbelieving scientists.
I've never found a contradiction in the bible. Just misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
So, mark plus, you are saying that Dawkins is lying when he says most scientists are atheists? (Of course, he DOES lie, about things like the NOTORIOUS Jewish lobby...p 4 and 44 of his deluded book...and Hitlers Jewish ancestry, but what the heck.)
As far as those scientists in Muslim contries buiding nuclear weapons, they are all western educated.
And you say Christians have hired these scientists to build these things.
And so the scientists do it?
For money?
Then those scientists are scumbags willing to sell out the human race for bucks?
If you put guns in the hangs of waring gangs, you share the guilt and your claims of superiority are in the trash.
Who ya kiddin?
So, mark plus, you are saying that Dawkins is lying when he says most scientists are atheists? (Of course, he DOES lie, about things like the NOTORIOUS Jewish lobby...p 4 and 44 of his deluded book...and Hitlers Jewish ancestry, but what the heck.)
As far as those scientists in Muslim contries buiding nuclear weapons, they are all western educated.
And you say Christians have hired these scientists to build these things.
And so the scientists do it?
For money?
Then those scientists are scumbags willing to sell out the human race for bucks?
If you put guns in the hangs of waring gangs, you share the guilt and your claims of superiority are in the trash.
Who ya kiddin?
Just to save most of you the pain of watching the video (I scanned through it at high speed):
1) Technology has removed philosophical isolation
2) Explosion of atheist books
3) Science has eliminated our "God of the Gaps"
4) Failure of Creation Science and Intelligent Design
5) Even believers are abandoning the Bible
6) Public disgust with God-driven politics
7) Less tolerance of discrimination
8) Perfect parallel between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalism
9) More people are seeking higher education
10) Scholars are recognizing that Jesus never existed
Stauffenberg said:
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological.
Why do scientists continue to develop new ways to fight disease, increase life expectancy, improve agriculture, predict weather, raise the quality of life, and explore the universe? Your argument doesn't make sense - science is not an ideology, atheism is not an ideology.
Science isn't ideology but atheism is.
The refutation in experience of alternate views does not prove the truth of the Christian faith. This only establishes its relevance, after generations had assumed its irrelevance and regarded it as merely the remnant of a prescientific past. The fact is that the essentials of the Christian faith cannot he proved, as one proves either scientific propositions or metaphysical theories. For the basis of the Christian view is the presupposition that the mystery of the divine is disclosed, not so much in the permanent structures and essences of existence, as in historical disclosures of which the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the climax. The "agape" of Christ is thus the clue to the divine mystery which is encountered in creation on the one hand, and on the other hand is met at the outer limits of our consciousness, when the perennial dialogue within the self is felt to be transmuted into a dialogue between the self and a divine "other" who is always judging and forgiving the self.
How can the self prove that its encounters with such an "other" are real? Must not the encounter between selves, whether human or divine, be a matter of faith and love rather than rational proof? Is the Christian enterprise in any different position in a scientific age than it was in the classical metaphysical age, when it had to bear witness to the reality of a divine judgment and mercy of the God of whom the Bible spoke, as against the conception of Plato’s or Aristotle’s "god," who could be philosophically proved? In short, the proof that we encounter a God who is above the structures and forms of life and has a freedom at least as great as our own; that we do not merely face an ocean of mystery which is at the same time the fullness and the absence of being (as that mystery is described for us by the mystics)-the proof of such a reality must be the "witness" of a life.
Thus the Christian community, founded in a unique disclosure of God to those who are ready to receive it, is called upon to "witness" to the truth of Christ by the fruits which emerge from an encounter between the self and such a God as Christ revealed. "By their fruits ye shall know them," declared Jesus; and St. Paul defined the characteristic fruits by which we bear witness to the truth of Christ as "love, joy and peace." That is to say, the only effective witness of the truth of Christ is a life in which the anxieties and fears of life have been overcome, including the fear of death; in which the prison of self-love, of preoccupation with the self, its interests and securities, has been broken so that the self can live in "love, joy and peace." That is, be so free of anxieties as to enter creatively into the lives of others.
Anonymous said...
Science isn't ideology but atheism is.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, atheism is:
1) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2) The doctrine that there is no God or gods
Ideology is defined as:
1) The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2) A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
How is disbelief in the existence of God a body of ideas, or a set of doctrines or beliefs?
This is promising, I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thank you for posting it.
Stuffenborg said,
"...More value on human life, mark pus?
Then why do atheistic scientists...Dawkins assures us most scientists are atheists...continue to fill the world with weapons of mass destruction; nuclear, chemical, biological."
Because the religious leadership pays them good money to develop them.
DUHHHH!
Hi Stauffenberg and Anonymous
Unlike you, an atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support.
Theology is mythology masquerading as philosophy [and brings discredit to philosophy].
Science and modern investigative research methods and higher textual criticism of the gospels are beginning to put religious claims, once considered as inviolable and inerrant, to the test, and rightly so, asking such questions as;
"If the evidence clearly supports the historical accuracy of the gospels, where is the need for faith? And if the historical reliability of the gospels is so obvious, why have so many scholars failed to appreciate the incontestable nature of the evidence?
Indeed it is time for atheism to properly claim its rightful position under the sun.
Cheers
This video is entirely too shallow. People, atheism itself is not a thing; it is the absence of a thing. Perhaps the things that atheists do will lead to a golden age, but atheism proper is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.
And really, I see a problem with this: without a well-developed secular code of morals, widespread and sudden loss of religions could cause utter havoc. Let's face it: most people haven't got the brains or initiative to discover the seeds of morality in the emergent processes of evolution. Many of them are so weak-minded that they NEED religion to keep them moral.
And perhaps most importantly, many people who would fain call themselves atheist (Bill Gates for example) are actually worshipers of Mammon, that being, the almighty $CURRENCY.
I firmly believe that the problems people attempt to pin on atheists in this thread (wars, WMD, and so forth) are caused by people who DO have gods of a sort: fascist personality cults like Soviet Russia or North Korea is one example. Money worship is another, cf. the arms merchants and warmongers and oil barons in the US (many of whom would identify as Christian if asked--hah!).
Then there are those whose minds are like collapsed steel balls, and whose gods are their own shallow, untested, willfully-sheltered-from-reality ideologies. George W Bush, I'm looking at you, you pathetic fundamentalisc dry-drunk whackaloon.
@Little Green Penguin:
>This video is entirely too shallow. People, atheism itself is not a thing; it is the absence of a thing.
Even atheists get this wrong. Atheism has a positive content analogous to veganism's. Vegans don't just disavow the exploitation of animals as a personal lifestyle choice, but the activists among them go further to attack the idea of basing a society on the exploitation of animals, while arguing for all the alleged advantages of the vegan alternative.
In other words, militant vegans behave like the New Atheists by arguing that carnivory poisons everything.
Carl
Theo-speak. Same-ol', smae-ol', Ho Hum.
ONE HUNDRED MILLION DEAD...more than all the victims of all the wars in all of history.
And all victims of the funamentally atheistic philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What is God's responsibility for those hundred million deaths? Was he responsible for them because of an act of omission, because he declined to intervene to prevent them? Or was he responsible for them because of acts of commission, because he was the knowing "First Cause Uncaused" of everything (or indeed because he intervened directly in human affairs for the specific purpose of bringing them about)?
Since the human race began, there have been perhaps a hundred BILLION deaths -- all of them according to the will of God, correct?
@ Steinmaster, and everybody else who persists in thinking that anything can be proved by pointing to the alleged religion or atheism of Hitler, Stalin, et alii-
you can't have this discussion without including the Taiping Rebellion, ethnic and class struggle at its finest. Wikipedia gives a perfectly adequate summary:
"The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, against the ruling Qing Dynasty. About 20 million people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history." The body count goes to the religious, but I think the real culprit is megalomania. Power-hungry people use or deny religion as suits their very temporal aims.
Post a Comment