Originally posted by Penguin
I agree with [1] and [2], but not with [3], [4] or [5], for reasons I have outlined. I can't offhand think of any reasons that would not fit under either [1] or [2].
Why are you so obsessed with Christianity here? The OP is from a Jewish Rabbi and is talking about [b]all religion. I see nothing special about you particular brand.
Penguin[/b]
Originally posted by Penguin
I agree with [1] and [2], but not with [3], [4] or [5], for reasons I have outlined. I can't offhand think of any reasons that would not fit under either [1] or [2].
[6]?
Why are you so obsessed with Christianity here? The OP is from a Jewish Rabbi and is talking about all religion. I see nothing special about you you particular brand.
Penguin
Penguin, Christianity isn't a "religion". Please see my reply to JS357: Thread 157631
"Christians ought to be the strongest supports of..." (Page one) Thanks.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby6. Anger over the relaxed summation of an atheist who groped relentlessly for light and finally changed his mind: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -C.S. Lewis And a reluctant appreciation of Pascal's "There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God. If I believe in the Risen Christ and it's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose. If true, then I have everything to gain."
[b]"Why Are Atheists So Angry?"
"By Rabbi David Wolpe - Huffington Post Added: Friday, 11 March 2011 at 3:21 AM Thanks to Morgan Zee for the link. How harmless is it to post an article about why people should read the bible on a site devoted to religion? I did on this very page, and it evoked more than 2,000 responses, most of them angry. I had ...[text shortened]... ly acquire the mind of Christ and share the perfect happiness of God. 'Grace' is a foreign word.[/b]
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby[6] is not a reason for any anger: C.S. Lewis is not saying anything meaningful here give the lack of evidence for Christianity over any other religion and Pascal's Wager has been raised and debunked so often here that its amazing you still think there is any value in mentioning it. And again, we are talking about religion in general, not just Christianity,
[b]6. Anger over the relaxed summation of an atheist who groped relentlessly for light and finally changed his mind: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -C.S. Lewis And a reluctant appreciation of Pascal's "There's a hole in the heart of man in th ...[text shortened]... 's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose. If true, then I have everything to gain."[/b]
--- Penguin.
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, there is a lot of fantastic religiously inspired art, architecture, music, poetry etc. However, the fact is that we simply don't know what art, architecture, music, poetry etc. would have been created without religion.
unbelievable statement, Carravagio would be turning in his grave, Titian as well! are you somehow forgetting of the social reformers who advocated an end to slavery, who reformed the prisons, the hospitals, primarily motivated by their religious sensibilities and you could not even grant them that? shameful, really shameful.
It was a cheap shot though so I will happily retract it and concede that religion quite possibly has made a positive contribution in those areas.
In terms of human rights though, I feel religion has a far more chequered and murky history with the amount of prejudice and persecution that has been condoned, encouraged and perpetrated directly by religious groups with their religious beliefs as the main justification. The amount of this that still goes on would be one of the main reasons for any 'anger' that atheists may feel towards religion in general.
Penguin
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinPenguin, I'll repost the OP. Is it accurate to conclude that you've dismissed Rabbi Wolpe's findings in their entirety?
[6] is not a reason for any anger: C.S. Lewis is not saying anything meaningful here give the lack of evidence for Christianity over any other religion and Pascal's Wager has been raised and debunked so often here that its amazing you still think there is any value in mentioning it. And again, we are talking about religion in general, not just Christianity,
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Why Are Atheists So Angry?"
"By Rabbi David Wolpe - Huffington Post Added: Friday, 11 March 2011 at 3:21 AM Thanks to Morgan Zee for the link. How harmless is it to post an article about why people should read the bible on a site devoted to religion? I did on this very page, and it evoked more than 2,000 responses, most of them angry. I had previously written a similarly gentle article about how God should be taught to children that evoked more than 1,000 responses, almost all negative and many downright nasty.
It is curious that a religion site draws responses mostly from atheists, and that the atheists are very unhappy. They are unhappy with the bible ("foolish fairy tales" is one of the more generous descriptions), unhappy with the idea of God (the "imaginary dictator" whose task in human history, apparently, is to ensure that oppression and evil triumph) and very unhappy with anyone (read: me) who presumes to offer religious advice to the religious. Only the untutored assume that religious people predominate on websites (Huffington Post Religion page, On Faith in the Washington Post, Beliefnet.com) devoted to religion.
In the past when I have debated noted atheists -- Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others -- the audience was heavily weighted toward my opponents. That makes sense. Each of these men -- like Dawkins, Dennett and others -- brings with them a large following. But why seek out a religious site solely to insult religion? I wondered: Why are atheists so angry?
Here are four reasons, none exclusive of the others:
1. Atheists genuinely resent the evil that religion has done. No one can seriously deny that religion has been guilty of wickedness in this world and has provided cover for wickedness. I refer not only to abusers who hide under the cloak of clergy, but religious persecutions, the stifling of speech and dissent, the mistreatment of women -- the crimes are legion. While as a believer I think there is much more to be said about this topic, it is certainly reasonable for people to be angry at religion for its abuses, particularly people who have themselves been victims.
2. They are convinced that religion is a fairy tale made up of whole cloth that impedes science/progress/rational thought. No avalanche of counterexamples, from noted scientists who are believers to the way in which the scientific method has flourished in the monotheistic west (as opposed to say, the non-monotheistic eastern societies) will serve to dissuade. That which is understood to have happened to Galileo is all, apparently, one needs to know.
3. Here is where I make my bid for more obloquy to be visited on my head. There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers. Too many atheists assume that a couple of insults will substitute for argument. They suffer from the incredulity of those who cannot believe anyone would disagree. It reminds me of the most self-assured of the faithful, who suffer the same intellectual imperialism. "I am right," a statement we all identify with from time to time, becomes "therefore you are stupid for disagreeing." A disagreeable sentiment, to say the least. And a narrow, thoughtless one, to boot.
4. Finally, I will go so far as to say that there is sometimes in the atheist a want of wonder. In a world in which so much is still not understood, in which multiple universes are possible, in which we have not pierced the mystery of consciousness, to discount the supernatural is to lack the openness to mystery that should be a human hallmark. There is so much we do not know. Religious people too should acknowledge this truth. Epistemological humility -- the acknowledgment that we are at the very first baby steps of understanding -- is far wiser than arrogance on either side. After all, we comprehend with our brains, and who knows how limited are our only organs of understanding?
So please, feel free to vituperate, argue and belittle. But understand that the religious dialogue is not advanced by shaken fists and snide asides. To quote the prophet, "Come let us reason together (Isaiah 1:18)." All of us ought to be astonished by our miraculous ability to talk, think, dream and disagree. Our first response to life should be gratitude and wonder that we share this remarkable world so far beyond our poor power to grasp. Now, let the derision begin!"
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/601271-why-are-atheists-so-angry
5. Atheists appear to be irritated by those in their periphery who possess a quiet confidence in their biblically informed and diametrically opposed points of view.[/b] The innermost being (right lobe of the soul) of a human being who has rejected the possibility that God Is and always has been without beginning or ending endures a continual inner rebellion against God which produces emptiness, darkness and self induced misery. Atheists appear to resent those who by faith alone in Christ alone have become trichotomous human beings with a human spirit which enables them to apprehend scriptural truth, grow in grace, gradually acquire the mind of Christ and share the perfect happiness of God. 'Grace' is a foreign word. (My footnote to the OP)
Originally posted by PenguinI think it's more than a little curious for you to concede the tangible artifacts of religion's influence (can't deny what can be physically pointed at, right), and yet turn a blind eye to all the other positive influences which were wrought by religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Yes, there is a lot of fantastic religiously inspired art, architecture, music, poetry etc. However, the fact is that we simply don't know what art, architecture, music, poetry etc. would have been created without religion.
It was a cheap shot though so I will happily retract it and concede that religion quite possibly has made a positive contribution in ...[text shortened]... the main reasons for any 'anger' that atheists may feel towards religion in general.
Penguin
If you're going to dismiss the gains realized, the chains broken by Christianity on the basis of the "chequered and murky history" then you certainly are now committed to dismissing any and all gains (whatever those are deemed to be) by atheism, thanks to the tireless work of such luminaries as Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and the like.
encouraged and perpetrated directly by religious groups with their religious beliefs as the main justification.
That's an interesting turn of phrase.
What's the old saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Those who are hungry for power will seize it and then maintain it using any means possible.
Their concern is not for doctrine; they use whatever doctrine they can to keep their position.
The various popes throughout the ages, as well as any of the other groups who have cloaked their campaigns in spiritual garb (including Adolf Hitler) have at least one aspect of their ascension in common: they have all behaved in manners inconsistent to what the majority of people consider to be normative Christianity.
Any person of any belief sees the reprehensible behavior and rightly labels the same as unseemly, and decidedly un-Christian.
28 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNot at all. I think [1] and [2] are fairly accurate descriptions of things about religion that get atheists angry.
Penguin, I'll repost the OP. Is it accurate to conclude that you've dismissed Rabbi Wolpe's findings in their entirety?
<snip>
The others are not things that get us angry.
I said all this in my first post in this thread.
Penguin.
28 Jan 14
Originally posted by Penguin"It is curious that a religion site draws responses mostly from atheists,
Not at all. I think [1] and [2] are fairly accurate descriptions of things about religion that get atheists angry.
The others are not things that get us angry.
I said all this in my first post in this thread.
Penguin.
and that the atheists are very unhappy." -Wolpe You concur?
28 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby7. Angry with rejection, i.e., the daily issue of peer acceptance, as if atheism was an abnormal alternative lifestyle.
[b]6. Anger over the relaxed summation of an atheist who groped relentlessly for light and finally changed his mind: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -C.S. Lewis And a reluctant appreciation of Pascal's "There's a hole in the heart of man in th ...[text shortened]... 's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose. If true, then I have everything to gain."[/b]
28 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinI apologize for sounding so harsh and condemnatory.
Yes, there is a lot of fantastic religiously inspired art, architecture, music, poetry etc. However, the fact is that we simply don't know what art, architecture, music, poetry etc. would have been created without religion.
It was a cheap shot though so I will happily retract it and concede that religion quite possibly has made a positive contribution in ...[text shortened]... the main reasons for any 'anger' that atheists may feel towards religion in general.
Penguin
28 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have had a look on that site and found the post about why we should all study the Bible. I failed to find the one about teaching God to children so can't see what he wrote there. The site does not seem to allow comments so I can't find any of these angry responses.
"It is curious that a religion site draws responses mostly from atheists,
and that the atheists are very unhappy." -Wolpe You concur?
[edit]The responses to the article you posted have just come up. I will look for the responses to the original article(s) and comment again later[/edit]
The 'why we should study the Bible' post is essentially saying that the stories in the Bible are human stories and so we can recognise our own situation in them. It is certainly one reason to read the Bible but it not the only, nor (in my opinion) the best book to read for an understanding of the human condition. I can't imagine too many 'angry' responses to this one, though I can imagine lots of critical ones.
The 'why God should be taught to children' piece I can imagine having angry responses to, though I have not read it myself. The title smacks of an urge to indoctrinate which I think anybody would oppose if the indoctrination is into a belief that they do not share. Would you be happy to let someone call for paganism to be taught to your children unopposed? If paganism was gaining traction in your area and influencing how you live your life, would you not be voicing your concerns?
He certainly has every right to suggest that schools should teach God to children, and we have every right to tell him where he is wrong.
I don't think it is curious, I think it is completely understandable. So to sum up, no, on that point I do not concur
Penguin.