CAMPOS: Dogmatic atheism

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 27, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

August 27, 2008

1:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

Wow. I may get struck by lightning for saying this but that was an exceptional column, Mr. Campos. Well done. Like a postage stamp, you stuck with your subject until the end.
August 27, 2008

6 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike846 writes:

Nice job, Paul. Of course, you could substitute Liberal or Conservative either one into the argument rather than atheist, and the logic would hold. To quote another old saw:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Anyone who says he "knows" doesn't. Extremism breeds this type of thing. Hopefully, voters can separate out the "true believers" on BOTH sides and rebuke their siren song. Mike
August 27, 2008

6:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Paul Campos: I have never read a column from you that I could finish without screaming at the monitor. This is a well reasoned essay, worthy of your Liberal Arts education! Thank you for the good beginning to the day.

By the way, the more I study, the more I learn that the Biblical absolutes are really few, although they are very absolute. Kind of like the laws of Physics are few, but absolute. Which is my roundabout way of saying that while the Bible does indeed allow capital punishment, it does not demand it.
August 27, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

From the dictionary:

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-tə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Hey look, I can make an argument without using any of my own original thoughts. Though I would like to point out the use of the word "belief" in the definition of atheism. Anyone with even half a scientific background knows that the fundamental basis for science is skepticism. Once anyone uses science as fact, or even better uses the phrase "scientific fact" has left the realm of science, and entered the dogmatic or fundamentalist (take your pick) realm of belief.
August 27, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Salchak_Toka writes:

Help! Help! Atheists are destroying America!

Thanks, Paul Campos! Always on guard against the real threats to American society!
August 27, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

Judging by the title, I was expecting this article to be an ignorant rant, but I'm content enough with it. However, I think the author misunderstands atheists a bit.

Barring those who are simply atheist as a result of being irreligious (and a few "atheist" teenagers who are really just rebelling against their parents), most staunch atheists are well aware of the religion they're rejecting. We don't need to write a thesis on the irrationality of theistic belief every time we need to decry it; we're all aware of why we don't believe and repeating it ad nauseam is a waste of time.

Enter the proverbial straw man. When one is introduced, it is for those reasons and is knocked down in the presence of other atheists because it is intended for other atheists. If a theist is interested in debating Aquinas' 5 Proofs, we're happy to oblige. But if we're trying to illustrate a simple point on a related matter, we're far more likely to use a generic paraphrasing of God et al instead of intricately explaining the theory of evolution... again. Being a writer yourself, you ought to know that different audiences require different styles of writing.

In other news, Charles_B is right. Agnosticism is a matter of knowing. Theism/Atheism is a matter of belief.
August 27, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

robertzimmerman writes:

"Atheism is a matter of belief."

No, it isn't. It is a matter of looking at the evidence, and I see no concrete, testable evidence of a deity. Until such time as that exists, I will remain an atheist.
August 27, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

When a person holds a belief that they are the one with all the answers to such a complex issue like religion and sees the opposite side of the issue as stupid, cowardly and with contempt that person is looking in the mirror yet doesn't see himself.
August 27, 2008

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

robertzimmerman, you must be one of the fundamentalists he was talking about. Atheism is indeed about belief: the absence of it. I was contrasting that with Agnosticism, which is about knowledge. Please read what you're responding to, nobody is offending your atheism.
August 27, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

robertzimmerman
Noah built a wooden boat approximately the size of a supertanker and put a mating pair of every single species of animal (and I suppose plant too) in it for I'm not sure I think it was a month while the world was destroyed by a big flood. This happened a few thousand years ago. Every animal (and I suppose plant) that we know today came from this boat.
If you have a problem with this story you're a dogmatic fool.
August 27, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

Charles B - Sorry but I'm quite certain that VVVV's is ver batim from Websters or any other dictionary. Other than that, yes there are atheists and theists, though suggesting that there is mutual exclusivity would be incorrect. I suggest you check the etimology before attempting re-definition of words.
August 27, 2008

9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Paul Campos said: "The nonfundamentalist atheist recognizes that many religious beliefs are just as rationally defensible as his atheism..."

Paul, sorry about your confusion over “rational,” but I’ll let you review the definitions of rational and irrational, and consider which point of view has the greater claim to rationality: 1) that which proudly proclaims itself as the absolute truth but states it should not need to provide evidence of that truth; or 2) that which asks extraordinary to claims be supported with testable evidence?

After you've had time to think about that for a while, we'll go on to examine your quite inventive view of the term: "Evidence."
August 27, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Dogmatic people are found in science, politics, and religion, so you don't have to be religious to be dogmatic.
Religious fundimentalists are particularly disagreeable because they insist on denying basic scientific knowledge, and they try to insert their particular religious beliefs into the public schools. Religion has been a great source of comfort and solace throughout history, and Atheists shouldn't deny that. Fortunately there are a lot of people who can live with science and religion. That is, you can believe that the universe is 13 billion years old and still believe that you have a soul.
August 27, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

I suppose we should be thankful that as Campos rotates through his limited list of column topics, he didn't land on 'The Obesity Conspiracy' again. I'm also grateful that as he readdresses Atheism, he says he's concerned only about that small minority of fundamentalist wacko atheists—not the rest of us reasonable nonbelievers who certainly must be in agreement with him.

Unfortunately, he then seems to go on to an argument that certainly does place the vast majority of atheists within his universe of defined atheist-fundamentalists. PC said:

- “…the argument that…"science"…is based on …"evidence"
while religious belief depends on something wholly different,
called "faith"…won't impress anyone who knows something about
the history, philosophy or sociology of science and religion, and who
isn't already fanatically committed to believing it.”

That there is a difference between “evidence” and “faith” seems uncontroversial to those who know “…something about the history, philosophy or sociology of science and religion”—not to mention those familiar with the fundamental principles of logic.

To explain it to Paul simply, the 'a' in 'a-theism' does not mean 'anti-,' it simply means 'without' (as Charles_B mentioned earlier). There is no positive assertion in atheism, either that a god must, or must not, exist. This is the same usage as the word 'apolitical' in that one may be without or outside of, while not being against, politics.

Theism, conversely, does assert a positive: “There is an invisible force called God that has influence over the Universe.” That means, since Theism is asserting the positive, it's the responsibility of the Theist to provide evidence. Let’s compare this to the position, “there is an invisible force called gravity that has influence over falling objects.” We’ll call this ‘Gravitism.’ I believe Gravitism is most probably true, because there’s a large body of demonstrable, repeatable –evidence- supporting it. I believe Theism (like, say, astrology) is probably not true, because no similar body of supporting evidence exists.

The non-believer simply asks that the evidence of those asserting the positive be vetted through the process demonstrated to have the greatest credibility—the scientific method. The Theory of Gravity has enough demonstrable, repeatable evidence that it does not require adherence to a ‘belief system’ (I know of no a-gravitists). The Theory of Theism lacks that evidence.

So, the real difference is that religious faith proudly proclaims it is belief without evidence (“that belief which passes all understanding”); while atheism simply reflects an unwillingness to accept non-provable supernatural claims based only on the surety and intensity of the person or entity making the claim.

Is that clear, Paul?
August 27, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

robertzimmerman writes:

postsimian:

If you were a bit less in love with constructing elegant sentences, your meaning might be easier to discern.

TC:

I certainly hope that's a joke.
August 27, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

nimbusco writes:

As usual with every Internet debate on the subject, people are using words like "know", "believe", "faith", "evidence", and "rational" with definitions that are incompatible.

For example, religion is full of rational arguments whose logical validity is quite sound. It's (often, not always) the truth of the premises that is in question, not the logical structure of the argument.
August 27, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

nimbusco writes:

Should have put this in my last comment. From http://etymonline.com:

atheist:
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

While the Greek prefix "a-" does mean without, the sense of the word has always included a denial of the existence of god(s). The statement "I am an atheist" asserts that the speaker believes that the world is without gods, not simply that the speaker lacks a belief in gods. At least, that's how I've always understood it, as have most people.
August 27, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

Charles_B:
You proved Campos' point.
August 27, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

fmikey writes:

TC - please provide some proof of your assertion. And, it needs to be something more legitimate than a mere series of bible verses.
August 27, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

this is a very simple issue.

either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or you don't.

pretty cut and dry.
August 27, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

robertzimmerman
Sarcasm actually.
Your original post was so comprehensive, correct, and concise it could have been written by Jesus himself.
August 27, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

jay,

Where does theism fit into your simplistic dichotomy? What if I believe there is a god but that belief is not based on any writings? According to your logic, atheists and some theists would be grouped together. Its your belief so you are free to shape it as you wish. But there may be some folks here who would also like to share your belief. So perhaps you could explain jayism for us.
August 27, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

slambango writes:

"fundamentalist" refers to someone who strictly sticks to the fundamental TEACHINGS. Since atheism has no teachings, there CAN BE NO SUCH THING as an "atheist fundamentalist"

sorry to burst your little bubble, but your rant is meaningless
August 27, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bagel writes:

I agree with most of the posters here, Campos started out well and then completely derailed. To suggest that science and faith are virtually equals is ridiculous.

His assertion that there is a wide range of atheist's viewpoints is correct. I tend to label myself differently depending on my audience. To those who believe in organized religion, I'm a radical atheist. To rational skeptics (such as myself), I'm an agnostic deist.
August 27, 2008

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

PaleoConservative writes:

Charles B. - did you read this part?

"It's a typical irony of life that fundamentalist atheism should have so much in common with what it most despises. IT'S EVEN MORE TYPICAL THAT ITS ADHERENTS ARE GENERALLY BLIND TO THESE PARALLELS."

Nicely written article, Campos.
August 27, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Good essay, although we don't really know who Campos is talking about--which makes the "fundamentalist athiest" easier to skewer. Nonetheless, we know that fundamentalist-like thinking is abundant. This is a great sentence:

"This arrogance is illustrated by their attitude toward questions which less self-confident souls might consider to be somewhat problematic - such as, for example, the ultimate nature of reality - but that fundamentalists consider no more mysterious than the design of a bottle opener."
August 27, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

fandango writes: "'fundamentalist' refers to someone who strictly sticks to the fundamental TEACHINGS."

The "strictly sticks" part is right. So is "the" fundamental teachings--as in: the infallible or undisputed teachings.

Campos point is not difficult: he's skewering those who think they "know" all there is to know, and their condemnation of those who don't hold the same "know".
August 27, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Wow.... hard to believe but Campos actually hit a home run with this article. 100% dead on correct.

Of course, those who are living examples of the subject that Campos discusses in the article, are certain to prove him correct.

Charles_B certainly demonstrated the accuracy of the article by doing exactly what Campos said is indicative of fundamentalist atheists. Others of a similar narrow belief system are sure to reinforce the validity of the article as well.
August 27, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bagel writes:

Am I crazy, because I didn't think Charles_B was actually refuting that extreme atheism can have similarities to fundamental theism. He just seemed to take issue with the terminology.
August 27, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

nimbusco, interesting couple of points and I’m always ready for a lively discussion on language. You mention people using “…definitions that are incompatible.” OK, Let’s agree on a consistent vocabulary, starting with the dictionary definition of the word “faith.”

- “Faith: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something,
especially without logical proof.”

…and “rational”

- “Rational: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible
thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice.”

…and its opposite, “irrational”

- “Irrational: lacking in reason; contrary to or lacking in reason or logic.”

So, if “irrational” is “lacking in reason or logic,” and “faith” emphasizes “without logical proof,” is “faith” not “irrational?”

And on to “Atheist.” Yes, although to the ancient Greeks, “atheos” meant “to deny the gods,” today’s accurate meaning of “atheism” is, as you say, simply “without god.” With very few exceptions, atheism is never presented as a ‘Fundamental Truth,’ as in “it is a proven fact that there is no God!”

The proven fact that does underlie atheism is that those asserting the very common position of their particular religion as fundamental and undeniable Truth (and other religions being absolutely wrong), have not presented testable evidence of that assertion.

This can lead to a rational position (‘belief’ if you like) that the odds of any religion being the ultimate truth are so vanishingly small, that such a belief based on faith can be logically and rationally dismissed. Again, this is different from the position atheists are often and inaccurately accused of: “I KNOW Religion is FALSE!” Compare this to the common Fundamentalist Christian saying when referring to the inerrancy of the Bible: “God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It!”

Since I have not yet seen convincing evidence of the supernatural, and despite a lack of proof against their existence, it can be stated that I don't believe in astrology; ghosts; ESP; fortune-telling; woodsprites, elves, or fairies; an omnipotent, omniscient, omnificent God; or in the ultimate truth of any one religion over any other religion.

Do you find any problems with my language, or my rationality?
August 27, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

pierrejc writes:

Bravo, Campos! Like you, I am tired of atheists proclaiming that they know God doesn't exist. That isn't something anyone can prove.
Likewise, I am sick of people who don't believe in Santa Claus mocking those of us who do. You can't disprove Santa's existence! Anyone who claims that they know that Santa is just a fairy tale figure simply does not have the evidence to support that point of view, and has no right to tell others that they are idiots for believing in the great Mr. Claus.
Yes, anti-Santa fundamentalists are a real pain in my neck. They are just as closed-minded as those atheist meanies. Shame on them!
August 27, 2008

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II said: “What if I believe there is a god but that belief is not based on any writings?”

OK, I’ll bite. On what DO you base your beliefs that there is a God? Plan on writing about it? Gathering a few followers perhaps? I understand that can be a lucrative calling…let me know how you do.
August 27, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

Paul,

I think your next research project ought to delve into the psychological necessity of humans to attach belief in the absence of knowledge. Why is it humans can't just live with the fact that "I don't know"?

That, I think, is the real issue at hand. Arguing about specifics is shown in studies to only reinforce belief away from the center, so this article's only result will be to make both sides even more fundamentalist. Find the cause and you can work on a cure.
August 27, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

malis,

I was ready to respond to your excellent and thoughtful comment at 12:06 when I just read your less than thoughtful comment at 12:28. Perhaps you have a roommate or a child who posts under your account.

I'll respond to a point from your better post.

"Since I have not yet seen convincing evidence of the supernatural, and despite a lack of proof against their existence, it can be stated that I don't believe in astrology; ghosts; ESP; fortune-telling; woodsprites, elves, or fairies; an omnipotent, omniscient, omnificent God; or in the ultimate truth of any one religion over any other religion.

Do you find any problems with my language, or my rationality?" - malis

There is an element of irrationality to religion and the belief in a higher power. That is why the religious speak of faith. But, if we are to talk of "convincing evidence" to the claim that a higher power exists, I would argue that the very fact we are alive in this world - a world created by something - is sufficient evidence for the belief in a higher power. You may choose to dismiss that as unconvincing evidence. But, can you understand why many others would be convinced by such evidence?

Evidence is hinged to human understanding. This is why we have juries consisting of multiple people rather than one person. If evidence were wholly agreed upon by everyone, we would only need a jury of one person since evidence could be treated as a indisputable binary: yes this is evidence; no, this is not evidence.

To me, the world around us, the universe, the plants, the animals, the fruit and vegetables, the calculated balance of everything, humans: these things are sufficient evidence of a higher power. To you, you remain unconvinced. So, whose evidence is correct? Mine or yours? If I determine that my evidence is sufficient, does that mean I am acting rationally? And if I determine that you are foolishly rejecting valid evidence, does that mean you are acting irrational?
August 27, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

First off, I have to say that I am absolutely stunned that Old Generalization hasn't posted on this one yet. Second, I wanted to recommend the book "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman to those who are interested in the whole theism/atheism debate. Kauffman presents a very interesting case about a natural creative property of our universe that is in contrast to strict reductionism, and doesn't use supernatural elements to explain this creative element. A very interesting read.
August 27, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

vvvv asks: "Why is it humans can't just live with the fact that "I don't know"?"

It seems there is an inherent human need to make sense of our world--probably tied to our need to feel secure. Before the development of science, which is very recent in human history, there was a lot more we didn't know or understand. I'm a strong believer in education and generally speaking that's probably where many of us learned to be more comfortable with "I don't know" because that is where we are more likely to hear the question "What do I know?" raised and discussed. Most of us, however, have much greater exposure to television and radio where "I don't know" is seldom heard, and "I know, and let me tell you about it" is usually the thought of the day.
August 27, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Church too.
August 27, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Where does theism fit into your simplistic dichotomy?"

does the belief in a higher power rest on the belief in the supernatural, john? i think you just answered your own question...considering my statement.

"According to your logic, atheists and some theists would be grouped together. "

competely false....and your next statement proves it.

"There is an element of irrationality to religion and the belief in a higher power"

bingo. either your beliefs are based in the supernatural or they aren't.

period.

they get the appropriate amount of credibility accordingly in my world view.

for instance, you said, "To me, the world around us, the universe, the plants, the animals, the fruit and vegetables, the calculated balance of everything, humans: these things are sufficient evidence of a higher power. "

that's just great.

but don't expect me to put any stock in your "feelings" instead of science.

reason...didn't we already debunk the myth of irreducible complexity?
see now, john...doesn't it feel better to get that off your chest?
August 27, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, excellent point on “Evidence is hinged to human understanding. This is why we have juries consisting of multiple people rather than one person.”

I very much agree. On matters of evidence, I tend to follow the ‘Scientific Method.’ As unavoidably leveraged through the infrastructure of Big Science—primarily university, government, and business-sponsored R&D centers doing the work—its results are captured and disseminated through hundreds of peer-reviewed (that is, “Juried”) scientific journals. Acknowledging hiccups at times, it works pretty well—a very large number of knowledgeable, thoughtful people view the evidence (and the arguments for and against it) and, over time, reach a consensus on the issue is at hand. Most people tend to agree with the validity of this method...until the outcomes of acknowledged science conflict with their deeply held beliefs and prejudices.

I admit my second post was snarky (as was your post to which I responded), but it was serious. Most believers choose (or choose to remain in) a religion based on the message of its leaders, and its sacred writings. I have asked many believers of several religions what made them decide on their particular set of beliefs and I’ve yet to receive a good answer. So I’ll ask you, why did you choose your religion over, say, Unitarian-Universalism, Buddhism, or Catholicism (as Sen. Sam Brownback choose to change his religion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism a few years ago)?

The earliest serious doubt of religion I clearly recall was at 14 in my Lutheran church’s Catechism class, listening, thinking “why do you expect us to believe this, but not, say Astrology?” As a young man I spent substantial effort trying to find a reason to remain a believer…tried to truly believe (even joined a evangelical, charismatic church and waited to be filled with the Holy Spirit—Born Again—as so many others seemed to be). I'm afraid I was simply never able to make myself believe in that which I could detect no evidence.

It wasn’t until later I realized that, on the subject of Theism, I'm in 99.9% agreement with nearly all sincere religionists. That is, I’m unable to justify a belief in 1,000 different gods and religions…they are unable to justify a belief in 999.

John_II, I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes that you find satisfaction and fulfillment in your religion, or in none if that’s your path of growth. I'll cheerfully accept your best wishes (feel free to call them prayers) that I receive evidence that would let me believe your 1 of 1000 gods proves true, however unlikely I think that may be.

If some religion does turn to be, against all odds, the only eternal truth, I hope it's either the Pagans or the Mormons. In their afterlife I may be greatly surprised—but at least I won’t be eternally tortured.
August 27, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Before the development of science, which is very recent in human history, there was a lot more we didn't know or understand. I'm a strong believer in education and generally speaking that's probably where many of us learned to be more comfortable with "I don't know" because that is where we are more likely to hear the question "What do I know?" raised and discussed." - anderson

What a load of nonsense. Science is a recent human activity? What nonsense. Science is simply the study of our surroundings. Humans have been studying our surroundings since day one.

This notion that many atheists hold which declares that the religious are religious merely because they are attempting to replace "I don't know" with something else is foolish. I am religious and I see no conflict whatsoever with my belief in God and science.

Since science is just the study of our surroundings, how can science conflict with the belief that those surroundings were designed and created by something? If I paint a picture, and you analyze my painting; its colors, its type of paint, its type of paper, its subject: how does that negate that the fact that it was, indeed, painted by me and that the painting did not just appear out of thin air? Science is merely the study of God's painting. Each examination and discovery only serves to compliment the painter, not to disprove him.
August 27, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

jay said,

"bingo. either your beliefs are based in the supernatural or they aren't."

But, in his previous comment he said,

"either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or you don't."

Notice anything different in his statement? Typical jay.
August 27, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sorry john...let me restate for the record in the hope that you'll actually address the point instead of getting hung up on the semantics.

either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or on the supernatural itself....or you don't.

again...pretty straightforward.

i don't know why folks get bent out of shape because other people don't give their superstitiuos beliefs as much weight as they feel they deserve.

what do you care what i think about your beliefs? if you don't interfere in my life using them as an excuse or vice versa...why should there ever be an issue?
August 27, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

That makes two recent Campos columns with which I agree. Lightning can strike twice in the same place.
August 27, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or on the supernatural itself....or you don't.

again...pretty straightforward." - jay

jay,

Each of your comments taken individually is very straight-forward. But, when examined as a group, each comment presents a different view. That is not a matter of semantics. That is pure intellectual inconsistency. The comment you posted now is completely different from your original comment.

"i don't know why folks get bent out of shape because other people don't give their superstitiuos beliefs as much weight as they feel they deserve." - jay

I am not bent out of shape in the least.

"what do you care what i think about your beliefs?" - jay

I don't at all in the sense that it will affect my own belief. We are simply having a discussion about beliefs and non-beliefs. I actually enjoy hearing others well-stated thoughts on their own beliefs.

"if you don't interfere in my life using them as an excuse or vice versa...why should there ever be an issue?" - jay

Well, that is a different story. How do I interfere with your life? By supporting laws that prevent you from killing pre-born babies? Sure, then my belief affects you. Just like your belief in liberalism takes more money out of my paycheck than other people's paychecks. So how do you reconcile conflicting beliefs? One way is to settle on a set of rules that we will all follow. We could call this set of rules a constitution. And, in this constitution, we will write all the rules we agree on. And anything not written into the official rulebook is left to others to decide on. So, for example, a rule such as "The right of an individual to kill a pre-born baby shall not be infringed upon" would effectively render my own beliefs powerless against you. The same goes for a rule such as "Every citizen shall receive retirement fund paid for by younger citizens against their will" If such a rule existed, my own beliefs would be powerless against your beliefs in liberalism.

Since neither of those rules actually exist, yet are implemented and enforced anyway, I'd say that your belief in liberalism has affected me more than my belief in God has affected you.
August 27, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

Just for the sake of comparison, here's three comments from jay on this thread:

The first comment:
"either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or you don't."

The second comment:
"either your beliefs are based in the supernatural or they aren't."

The third comment:
"either you base your beliefs on the writings of men about the supernatural or on the supernatural itself....or you don't."

And it all started with an innocent comment from jay declaring that "this is a very simple issue...pretty cut and dry"

So simple, it only takes three attempts to get it right. Or, have you not finished modifying your belief?
August 27, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"That is pure intellectual inconsistency"

no...it's semantic inconsistency...which is why i restated it...so that you could actually move on and address the point, john.

any questions? care to address the point?

"then my belief affects you."

bingo...which is why religious fundamentalists are a problem just as much in the middle east as they are here.

"Just like your belief in liberalism takes more money out of my paycheck than other people's paychecks"

completely false. nice try though.

if you don't support keeping religious fundamentalism out of our gov't then you're part of the problem not part of the solution....whether it be here or in iran.
August 27, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"bingo...which is why religious fundamentalists are a problem just as much in the middle east as they are here." - jay

Really? How so?

"completely false. nice try though." - jay

False? How so? Are you saying liberalism does not take more out of my paycheck in the name of "equality" and "fairness"?

"if you don't support keeping religious fundamentalism out of our gov't then you're part of the problem not part of the solution....whether it be here or in iran." - jay

Where did "religious fundamentalism" enter the discussion here? And when did anyone say anything about "religious fundamentalism" in government?

"no...it's semantic inconsistency...which is why i restated it...so that you could actually move on and address the point, john." - jay

Do you know what semantic means? You presented three different arguments. You haven't "restated" anything. Are you now saying that your first two arguments were wrong and that I should respond to your third (and hopefully last) argument? You don't seem very confident in your premise. How do I know that when I reply to your third premise, you will not then change your position again during the course of our discussion and create an endless series of mismatching comments?
August 27, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, yes, science as a structured method of gaining an understanding of the natural world is relatively recent human activity. Given the first evidence of homo sapiens between 200-160k years ago, appearance of Cro-Magnon man in Europe about 40k years ago, and the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent about 10k year ago, marking the generally-acknowledged milestone of the origination of human civilization…the last few hundred years is, indeed, relatively recent. Just as an observation, structured science has succeeded despite the strong resistance of by religions whenever they had the power (ref: "...and still, it moves!").

I do, however, appreciate your rational understanding of the lack of conflict between science and religion. I've know several talented and knowledgeable scientists who were also strong believers in religion. In their understanding, God used natural law to accomplish His goals…evolution, for example, was simply the tool used by God to create humans. I have not, however, ever known a decent scientist who believed in Young-Earth Creationism or its cousin in disguise, Intelligent Design.
August 27, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bagel writes:

malis, look up Kurt Wise. It really is pretty heartbreaking the decision he had to make in "giving up" science.
August 27, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Really? How so?"

you already answered this question by admitting that your religious beliefs interfere in the lives of others.

"Are you saying liberalism does not take more out of my paycheck in the name of "equality" and "fairness"?"

and the hypocrisy starts.

you originally said, my "belief in liberalism takes more money out of my paycheck than other people's paychecks".

which is completely ridiculous...when you consider the belief in conservatism...

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

see how fun that is john? at least i just added some qualifiers to my original statement...instead of completely changing it.

but anyway...my point stands regardless of what you said either time...just like mine above.

so...are you going to pout about semantics...or address the point?

as far as the importance of keeping religious fundamentalism out of gov't and its relevancy here in this discussion....i thought we were talking about how religious beliefs interfere in the lives of others....did i get that wrong? i seem to remember you saying something about that...

so....do you agree that its important to keep religious fundamentalism out of gov't...whether it be iran or the united states?
August 27, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"John_II, yes, science as a structured method of gaining an understanding of the natural world is relatively recent human activity." - malis

Structured is the key word there that was missing in the previous statement.

Most everything can be defined as "relatively recent" when considered in a modern context. At some point, man created rudimentary weapons to aid himself and his clan in hunting. He discovered, through a heuristic process, better ways to kill. He shared this information with the rest of his clan. Why is that method of science not considered "structured"? Of course, 40k years later, we have a lot more clan members and better tools to share what we learn. Just as modern scientific tools such as the Internet would have been absolutely useless to the prehistoric clan of 20 members 40k years ago, so are ancient methods useless to our modern day clan. A stone tied to a stick was no less important to prehistoric man than the mapping of the human genome is to us now.

But, talk of structred vs. non-structured science is irrelevant anyway. Science is simply the study of our surroundings. The point is that man has always been interested in science since day one. Whether or not we have become better at approaching science in a standardized methodical way is irrelevant to the discussion of science and God.
August 27, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"you already answered this question by admitting that your religious beliefs interfere in the lives of others." - jay

In a democracy, everyone's beliefs has the possibility of "interfering" with the lives of others. But, that is completely different from the actual comment that I was responding to:

"religious fundamentalists are a problem just as much in the middle east as they are here." - jay

I specifically quoted this statement and asked, "How so?" And you reply with something completely irrelevant.
August 27, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Whether or not we have become better at approaching science in a standardized methodical way is irrelevant to the discussion of science and God."

this isn't true either, john....because as i suspect you know...the more credible science becomes, the less credible religion becomes.

that's pretty relevant...no?
August 27, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

As for your simple dichotomy:

""either your beliefs are based in the supernatural or they aren't."

I agree.
August 27, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose writes:

Poor baby, Campos! He cannot distinguish between a true fundamentalist christian and a fundamentalist atheist. Too bad because one (the christian) knows what he is talking about and the other (the atheist) is only echoing, espousing something against God he knows nothing about. I know what the atheist is complaining about but he knows nothing of what I am talking about when it comes to God. He has not EVEN read the handbook (The Bible). He's afraid of it because it shows his ignorance, it screams his ignorance of God. It should be real easy to know which one is the atheist since he is the one that is ignorant of the beliefs of a true christian. The christian however knows about the atheist's beliefs because he once was an atheist(heathen) but chooses instead to believe in God having read and understood what the Good Book says. Don't get in my face and come screaming at me, I read the BOOK! If you read it and tell me you studied it for years and years, you didn't really. You see the Good Book says it must be REVEALED to you. It's in your heart that happens, not your head. Man's belief in his own intellectual capacity is messed up and is arrogant. My brother is relatively intelligent and an atheist and since God has not PERFORMED to his expectations he hates HIM, just like a small child who doesn't know better does. Time for all you atheists to grow up and face your Maker since it's either now or later but you will meet him! Count on it!
August 27, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

what don't you understand, john....that religious fundamentalism's influence on gov't should be limited...or that it does harm?
August 27, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose writes:

Jay:

The more science discovers things the more credible God's Word becomes. You see because you discount His Word it's not a real scientific study. Anytime you discount a factor/fact the less credible your results are. Your big bang theory or whatever alterenate belief you have cannot explain a lot of things such as where did that vapor, cloud, cell come from? It was not there on it's own accord so you are intentionally ignoring facts making science irrelevant.
August 27, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"religious fundamentalism's influence on gov't should be limited...or that it does harm?" - jay

How? Why? What are you referring to? I understand that you would like it to be limited because you disagree with religion in general. I disagree with socialism. So I guess I could say, "socialism's influence on gov't should be limited". But, what specifically are you referring to? And how does that equal the religious fundamentalism of the Middle East?
August 27, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, no, “…simply the study of our surroundings…” describes curiosity (and perhaps history) which may drive but is not a substitute for science. It becomes science once it starts using a structured, repeatable methodology to explain the previously unknown, and then extends the explanations to testable predictions, based on a framework of coherent theory.

It is …”relevant to the discussion of science and God,” in that when religion has tried to be a substitute for science—that it, to provide a supernatural explanation for observations of the natural world—it has a losing streak of thousands of years. In every case, when the previously unexplainable could now be explained, the natural explanation first predicted and then demonstrated by science, has won out over the supernatural explanation similarly predicted by religion, then disproved by evidence.

In no case did any of this disprove religion as a whole…just the single assertion put forth by a religion. Still, it does tend to make one skeptical of the pronouncements of religion.
August 27, 2008

4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, you're moving to a different topic. I, too, am against the mindset of *Fundamentalism* (primarily but not exclusively found in religion). I agree the worst manifestations of Fundamentalism are currently found in the state-mandated radical Islam of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and I will absolutely fight the extension of that mindset to the western world. On the other hand, I will be watchful of our home-grown agents of a like Fundamentalism in the US...and that is mostly in the more xenophobic recesses rooted in the darker (and luckily, splinter ) branches of Fundamentalist Christianity. The primary difference is, I'm afraid, of degree, not intent (and I am very glad—one might even say thankful—for that difference).

All are free to try mold society to a preferred standard, and free to use religion as a model. Where it gets worrisome is when one religion wants its opinion of holy writing to be enforced by government, or say it is not subject to the rule of law—that we cannot allow. Religion belongs in the Public Square, but when James Dobson or Mike Huckabee (or Barack Obama for that matter) try to take that to the Government Square—to have their religious opinions established as law—they’ll have a fight on their hands (and lose, even with a conservative Supreme Court, because it’s hard to really know the Constitution without a deep understanding of the Establishment Clause).

So again, if one can justify a position in terms of benefit to society, without using religious mandates, go for it (even if the motivation is religion, no problem...just have a convincing non-religious rationale also).
August 27, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Jay/John/malis - This discussion is good, but you are ignoring the Fundamental Christian ordered from central casting - denverrose.

As for me, apathetic agnostic - don't know, don't care. In fact now I've gone against my belief of not caring by responding with this post - I better start not caring more.

Seriously, malis @ 10:14 was a good post on the definitions. Does that make me a Fundamental Malisist?
August 27, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

john, you seem to be running in circles here trying to avoid answering this simple question:

do you agree that its important to keep religious fundamentalism out of gov't...whether it be iran or the united states?

if you don't understand why i'm asking...please see the posts above.

looking forward to your answer...which by the way can neither be right no wrong...but just an opinion.
August 27, 2008

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"no, “…simply the study of our surroundings…” describes curiosity (and perhaps history) which may drive but is not a substitute for science. It becomes science once it starts using a structured, repeatable methodology to explain the previously unknown, and then extends the explanations to testable predictions, based on a framework of coherent theory." - malis

malis,

The word science comes to us from the Latin scient. Scient, in Latin, simply means having knowledge. The first definition of science, according to Webster's dictionary, is:

" the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"

Now, I do not deny that the word science connotes a more organized approach to acquiring knowledge. But isn't that approach relevant to the context? For example, how would our current approach to science help the prehistoric man who is trying to make a better hunting weapon for his clan? Would extensive documentation help him? The availability of the Internet? A classroom? The writing of grants? None of those things would have helped our prehistoric hunter. So "structured science" is a relevant term.

How do you know the prehistoric hunter did not approach hunting with his own brand of structured methodology? How do you know that the hunter did not try different weapons until he was able to accomplish "testable predictions"? At some point, he must have been able to predict that a blow to the skull with a particular weapon with a certain force would always result in a kill. And, at some point, he shared that knowledge with his clan members that allowed them to learn a new hunting technique as well.

"It is …”relevant to the discussion of science and God,” in that when religion has tried to be a substitute for science—that it, to provide a supernatural explanation for observations of the natural world—it has a losing streak of thousands of years." - malis

A losing streak of thousands of years? No. In fact, looking at our current culture and its rejection of many religious values, it seems that religion has been correct and secularism has been tragically wrong. Look at all the STD's, abortions, fatherless families, crime, murder, and depression that our God-less society faces. The Christian religion preaches chastity, honoring the family, honesty, and a respect for life among other values. The societal afflictions I previously mentioned are all preventable by an adherence to Christian wisdom. So, if there is a losing streak, it is due to the rejection and abandonment of Christian values, not the adherence of them.
August 27, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"do you agree that its important to keep religious fundamentalism out of gov't...whether it be iran or the united states?" - jay

Define "religious fundamentalism". Define "keep ... out". I still do not know what you are referring to. Perhaps that is because you refuse to clarify yourself.

Are you suggesting that a "religious fundamentalist" should be barred from running for public office? Then my answer is no. We have a Constitution that says, among other things, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

So, as long as the "religious fundamentalist", or the socialist, or the Marxist, or the environmentalist does not violate that rule or any other rules in the Constitution, why should that person be "kept out" of government if they were rightly elected to the office?
August 27, 2008

5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Thanks O_TRAIN. Hmmm...I've already got the beard and some sandals. I could put together my posts and obfuscate the language a little to make them a more ambiguous and open to interpretation...then find a few believers ready to support my continued musings (hmmmm...Malisism!)...it's not like it hasn't been done before!

I hadn't responded to denverrose because, well, I was waiting for for him/her to actually say something other than '“God Said It. I Believe It. That Settles It!” (not much to argue with there). But OK, to repeat something I asked someone else (without getting an answer, I’m afraid)…

Denverrose, you said “The christian however knows about the atheist's beliefs because he once was an atheist(heathen) but chooses instead to believe in God having read and understood what the Good Book says.” Over the years, I’ve asked many believers of several religions what made them choose their particular set of beliefs and I’ve yet to receive a good answer. So I’ll ask you, why did you choose your religion over, say, Unitarian-Universalism, Buddhism, or Catholicism (as Sen. Sam Brownback choose to change his religion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism a few years ago)? Why should I believe you, over someone with the same surety and intensity of belief in Islam, or Orthodox Judaism?

You see, on the subject of Theism, I'm in 99.9% agreement with you. That is, I’m unable to justify a belief in 1,000 different gods and religions…you are unable to justify a belief in 999.

Denverrose, I hope you can accept my sincere best wishes that you find satisfaction and fulfillment in your religion, or in none if that’s your path of growth. I'll cheerfully accept your best wishes (feel free to call them prayers) that I receive evidence that would let me believe your 1 of 1000 gods proves true, however unlikely I think that may be. But I would appreciate your response to the question.
August 27, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

drumdance writes:

If atheism is a belief, then not playing chess is a hobby. Why are theists so sure, or even partly sure about their own god, but have no doubt that Zeus is a myth? Once upon a time the entirety of Greece -- a society that is foundational to Western civilization -- was as sure of Zeus as the Pope is of Jesus.

If you assert that God exists, the onus is on you to prove it. You've already rejected all the other gods -- Zeus, Hera, Mars, Allah etc.. The only difference between you and an atheist is, we reject just one more god than you do.
August 27, 2008

5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Over the years, I’ve asked many believers of several religions what made them choose their particular set of beliefs and I’ve yet to receive a good answer. So I’ll ask you, why did you choose your religion over, say, Unitarian-Universalism, Buddhism, or Catholicism (as Sen. Sam Brownback choose to change his religion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism a few years ago)?" - malis

Honestly, I started to write a thoughtful answer to that question but realized I was getting way to personal for this forum, especially when it is populated with hateful characters like Charles B.

But, I will paraphrase some of my comments. I was raised as a Catholic. Yet, since I was a kid until not too long ago, I considered myself an "ardent" atheist. I was a member of the Brights. I thought I was too smart for God. In fact, not too long ago, I probably would have sounded a lot like jay and CB on this subject. I publicly poked fun at believers.

Now, I look back and realize that I wasn't nearly as smart or wise as I thought I was. And that most of my rejection of God was due to my ego rather than a thoughtful introspection of my beliefs.

Once I admitted to myself that a God does exist, I re-examined Catholicism. Do I still have doubts about certain details of the religion? Of course. But I have become a great admirer of Christian wisdom and Catholic leadership. I believe a religion needs strong and wise leadership to keep itself relevant. I also believe that tradition is an extremely important aspect to human life. I admire the Catholic Church for preserving its tradition. So strongly do I believe the importance of tradition that I have learned to read & write Latin and Greek in order to remain connected to early Christians.
August 27, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

JWill writes:

Besides plagiarizing the first line of the Great Gatsby... what's the point of this op-ed? Did Mr. Campos just discover that stubborn people think they know everything? His point isn't that some primary tenet of atheism necessarily generates an aversion to alternative possible explainations of reality. It's that some hypothetical atheists have a fun time with their straw men...

And the tone of this article is disgusting. Who is Paul Campos to define an entire people he's called "fundamental athetists"? What if this small professor of law wanted to tell you about "one of the curiousities" of the Jew or the "intellectual naivete" of the Irishman or the ignorance of the Christian? Not only would CU be filling his chair with another professor but the RMN would be retracting faster than whiplash. This style went out of favor in the 19th century for a reason.

Campos has no right to generalize about an entire belief system; no right to put words into the mouths of other people. As a minor plagurist and a student of philosophy Paul Campos should know that its sweeping attempts at defining the narrative of other people like these that buttress racism, intolerance and even fundamentalism itself. Ironically, by lumping together a mass of wildly different peoples under the same banner, then cramming an entire philosophy down their throats, Campos made a straw man of his own. That knocking it down made the Rocky is pathetic...
August 27, 2008

5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"If atheism is a belief, then not playing chess is a hobby." - drumdance

Not quite.

"Playing chess" is an action; a verb. "Hobby" is a noun. Your analogy is illogical.

To play or not play chess is a conscience decision. If you are playing chess, you have chosen to play chess. If you are not playing chess, you have chosen to not play chess. That choice is based on one's inclination or belief: I believe I should play chess; I believe I should not play chess.

To believe in a God is also a conscience decision. If you believe in God, you have chosen to believe in God. If you do not believe in God, you have chosen to not believe in God. The choice is based on one's inclination or belief: I believe there is a God; I believe there is not a God.

Atheists believe there is no God. Theists believe there is a God.
August 27, 2008

6:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

john, i see you're still struggling with that simple question.

oh well...tell you what....we'll pick it up another day.
August 27, 2008

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, you're being disingenious in an attempt to to avoid answering Jay's question on Fundamentalism. But I'm a patient guy so I'll pretend you're serious.

Let’s establish a consistent vocabulary. As we’ve been using the term, “Religious Fundamentalism” refers to:

- a deep and totalistic commitment to a belief in the infallibility
and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and
strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away
from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamen...

(Wikipedia’s good enough for our purposes…please let me know if you’d prefer an alternate definition and provide a regference)

The reason I oppose the intrusion of Fundamentalism in government, is that, because of its inherent characteristics, Fundamentalists must impose their religious rules and strictures on their society—failure to do so means they are failing their religion (and please refer to Iran and Saudi for examples of societies based on religious fundamentalism).

Luckily, I’m supported in my goals by the First Amendment of the Constitution which says, in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In writing the First Amendment, the goal of the Founders was to eliminate the influence of any -particular- religion from government (lessons-learned from the State Churches of Europe). They wisely foresaw the only way to do this was to, as far as possible, establish a government forever free of -any- religion. The result was the Establishment Clause, serving four purposes:

1) protect the government from religion
2) protect religion from government
3) protect religions from each other
4) protect nonbelievers from religion

The separate Freedom of Religion Clause serves to protect religion from government, religions from each other, and religions from the anti-religious (religions need no protection from atheists).

By the way, the Founders’ goal did not include a desire to (as you're about to say) eliminate religion from the public square—that’s that's neither possible not desirable. Again, the goal of the Founders was to keep the influence of any particular religion out of the *government* square.

To summarize, religion is a private matter, with full right of public expression, but without government influence (either of government on religion, or of religion on government).

It is simply my opinion (echoing, I believe, that of the Founders) that because of human nature (especially the propensity of humans to see patterns and infer 'cause' where none actually exists), supported by the evidence of human history, the nearly complete separation of religion from the *government* square (that is written into law or supported by government resources) is the only way to keep freedom OF religion, freedom FROM religion and, therefore, a free society.
August 27, 2008

6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

As an atheist, I do not despise religion. Figure they have a right to believe what they want. What I don't like is people pushing it at me. Some tell me god helped get me sober-24 yrs ago. I tell them if I were to believe that, then he is the one that made me an alcoholic, so why thank him? John says godless society, wrong, most are believers, so there goes that argument. Give ten Preachers a verse from the bible and ask them to explain it and you'll get 6 different explanations of what it means. religion to me is mass confusion, 2500 different denominations in this Country, some leave one church for another cause they don't like their interpretation of the bible, etc. When they get their act together and figure it all out, come see me, otherwise, leave me alone.
August 27, 2008

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, good, honest answer on my “why did you choose to believe in…” question...thanks. I am still curious on the second half though (why did you NOT choose UUism, or Buddhism, etc.), and the extension in a later posting: Why should I believe you, over someone with the same surety and intensity of belief in, say, Islam, or Orthodox Judaism?
August 27, 2008

6:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

JohnStockwell writes:

"The worst aspect of fundamentalism is the contempt it breeds for everyone who doesn't share the faith." -Paul Campos

Reading this editorial, I expected to encounter some sort of in depth
discussion of ``fundamentalist atheism''. What text
of ``fundamentals'' do these alleged fundamentalists quote from?
What is their agenda? Why should we care that there are
fundamentalist atheists, if indeed such an animal exists?
We learn none of this.

Instead, Mr. Campos' real agenda is to promote the intelligent
design creationist movement by insulting athiests with
the ad hominem taunt that they are ``intellectually naive.''

Atheism differs from religion in that there is no required
explanation for the origin of the universe or of life, or of
the laws of physics. For some reason Mr. Campos has a
problem with the fact that atheists may prefer scientific
theories to supernaturalist explanations. Science isn't
perfect, but the alternative (ignorance and superstition)
doesn't seem to have delivered the most desireable goods
in the past 2000+ years.

Indeed, there are abrasive atheists, just as their abrasive
Christians. The term ``dogmatic'' is misplaced however.
Scientifically knowledgeable folks know that science delivers
tentative explanations that change as new data are aquired,
new methods of observation are invented, and new ways
of working with data are created. Dogma are supposed to
be forever.

It is really hyperbolae to equate any atheists to the Taliban,
who employ destruction and violence as a way of remaking
society into their image of perfection.

Most atheists view atheism being to religion what baldness is
to hair color. However, if Mr. Campos is really serious about
atheism being a religion, then there are certain inequities that
need to be redressed. Shouldn't atheist organizations be given
the same tax exempt qualifications as those of more
traditional religions? And, how about all of that anti-atheist
hate speech we hear? Shouldn't Mr. Compos be toning down
his own anti-religion rhetoric, even if that religion is atheism?
August 27, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"John_II, you're being disingenious in an attempt to to avoid answering Jay's question on Fundamentalism." - malis

How so? I am asking for clarification. How is that disingenuous?

"The reason I oppose the intrusion of Fundamentalism in government, is that, because of its inherent characteristics, Fundamentalists must impose their religious rules and strictures on their society—failure to do so means they are failing their religion (and please refer to Iran and Saudi for examples of societies based on religious fundamentalism)." - malis

Didn't I already address that issue? As long as they obey the Constitution, what is the harm in having a "fundamentalist" or any other "ist" serving in office?

If you disagree with a certain politician's values, do not vote for that politician. I abhor socialism/liberalism. So I do not vote for socialists. But I do not deny the right of a socialist to serve in government.

"They wisely foresaw the only way to do this was to, as far as possible, establish a government forever free of -any- religion." - malis

That is simply not true. In fact, it is provably not true because of the simple fact that it was not written into the Constitution. I posted it in a previous comment but I'll post it again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It did not say religion and government could not mix. It did not say government could not be run religious people. It meant exactly what it says. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This law was in direct response to England's establishment of an official state church. No where in the Constitution does it say government should be free of any religion.

The Constitution does, in fact, specifically outlaw socialism. So, I'm curious if you are as concerned about the infiltration of socialism into the federal government as you are about religious people working for the government.
August 27, 2008

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"I am still curious on the second half though (why did you NOT choose UUism, or Buddhism, etc.), and the extension in a later posting: Why should I believe you, over someone with the same surety and intensity of belief in, say, Islam, or Orthodox Judaism?" - malis

I am not asking you to believe me. I chose to become a Catholic based on the qualities that I outlined in a previous post and also because that is the religion I was raised with and am most familiar with.

I said in my previous post that I admired Catholic values, leadership and tradition. I was born into a Catholic family so, naturally, I am partial to that religion.
August 27, 2008

8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, I use “disingenuous” in that I'm pretty sure you’re pretending NOT to understand, things you understand very well, as a method of diverting attention from the actual point of the argument. As an example, is there any possibility you actually believe I’m saying that religious believers (no matter how fundamentalist) should not have the right to a position in government? I think not.

As I said earlier, everyone is free to try mold society to a preferred standard, and free to use religion as a model. People who make laws are, and will continue to be, influenced by religion. Voters will make decisions based on an individual judgment of what degree of this influence is proper, and I certainly wouldn't want to take away the ability of anyone—theists or non-theists—to make that decision. The problem—and what is prohibited by the Establishment Clause—is the when religion tries to enforce its doctrine through power of government.

And, yes, the Constitution does clearly state something very close to your statement—“…religion and government could not mix.” It says this because its authors, the mostly very religious individuals who founded our country, understood the potential danger religion posed to society, and the potential danger of the State to religion. Therefore, in their foundational document of government, “the supreme law of the land”—the Constitution—they purposefully and unambiguously established freedom both of and from religion, enforced by the “wall of separation between church and state” (Jefferson’s words, referring to the Constitution’s Establishment Clause).

They did this in Article VI:

- “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the United States.”

…and in the 1st Amendment:

- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Recall that the agreement to ratify the Constitution in the first place, was reached only on the assurance of the immediate additional ratification of the first ten amendments—the “Bill of Rights.” Notice the place of honor granted the Establishment Clause—the first freedom of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, is freedom from and of religion.

Something like Sharia of Islamic Fundamentalism will have a chance to gain a foothold in America only if something like the efforts of the current Administration to subvert the Constitution are successful. I'll do everything I legally can to prevent that, whether the sponsorship is the fundamentalism of Islam or the fundamentalism of Christianity (thankfully, a very small actual number of folks).
August 27, 2008

8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

By the way, I certainly don’t expect you to take my word for what I said in the previous post…let’s take a look at how the Establishment Clause is actually interpreted by the US Supreme Court. In Everson v Board of Education (1947), the Court said:

- “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up
a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

- “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect
`a wall of separation between church and State.'

- “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied
to support any religious activities…

- “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can,
openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups…

- “the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a
secular reach far more penetrating … in the conduct
of Government than merely to forbid an `established church.'

- “…we have staked the very existence of our country on the
faith that complete separation between the state and religion
is best for the state and best for religion.'”

You and whatever religion you choose (and you've freely chosen one of the 1000 different religion and sects out there) have the full right to establish the moral rules governing all those who voluntarily agree to abide by those rules. Once you join the rest of society (and accept the benefits of belonging to said society), you do not have the right to force your rules on those who do not voluntarily agree to abide by them. We have agreed in our society to a system to document societal rights and privileges, and their conditions (Laws) and to resolve disputes and differences over the interpretations of these rights (Courts).

You disagree and say that not tolerating your religious dictates is a violation of your rights? Fine, we'll work it out in court, through the rule of law, and both agree to abide by the results (while keeping the right to change the applicable set of law, through the democratic process).

See, wasn't that easy?
August 27, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

the rub is that john is cornered and is a hypocrite either way. on the one hand he could disagree...and thus be pro-taliban ...which would obviously be at odds with his warmongering rhetoric...or...he could be anti-middle eastern taliban, but pro-american taliban and tolerant of religious fundamentalism as long as the particular brand of bigotry, interference and ignorance he favors discriminates against the "right" kind of people, interferes in the "right" kind of lives and supports the "right" kind of ignorance for our children...which of course...also makes him a hypocrite.

tough spot to be in...i might be running too...or not.
August 27, 2008

10:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

malis,

I think about 90% of your last two posts are either in direct agreement with my own comments on this thread or are completely irrelevant.

We have now both posted, numerous times, the text of First Amendment.

When I ask for clarification regrading "religious fundamentalists", it is because I am not sure what that term means.If we both agree that the Constitution must be followed, then why point out a specific religious group? Any group that violates any part of the Constitution should be avoided. So I'm not sure why you seem so concerned about one particular group when another group (the socialists) have trampled all over the Constitution to the point that that document no longer matters when devising public policy.

"The problem—and what is prohibited by the Establishment Clause—is the when religion tries to enforce its doctrine through power of government." - malis

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you give me specific examples? Is it possible for "religion" enforce its doctrine through the power of government - legally? Your comment here is much too vague.

"Something like Sharia of Islamic Fundamentalism will have a chance to gain a foothold in America only if something like the efforts of the current Administration to subvert the Constitution are successful." - malis

Again, please be specific. How do you mention the Sharia in the same sentence with Bush?

"Once you join the rest of society (and accept the benefits of belonging to said society), you do not have the right to force your rules on those who do not voluntarily agree to abide by them." - malis

Now that is a confusing statement. Plenty of rules are imposed on me against my will. My paycheck is raped every two weeks by those who believe I should be punished for being successful.

"You disagree and say that not tolerating your religious dictates is a violation of your rights?" - malis

What on earth are you talking about? Are you addressing me or someone else? When did I say anything near what you just suggested I said?
August 27, 2008

10:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Silly man, please show me what I said on this thread that could be considered "hateful"?" - CB

"I'd also like readers of this thread to note that John II is a yellow-bellied intellectual coward..." - CB
August 28, 2008

7:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

drumdance writes:

John_II writes: Atheists believe there is no God. Theists believe there is a God.

Puh-lease, spare me the semantics. You don't believe in Zeus, do you? What about Hera or Mars or the Aztec Gods? Did you sit down and decide not to believe in them? Is this something you pondered for a long time before decidng to believe in one God?

Or, as I suspect, were you raised in a religious environment, or perhaps had a spiritual moment? Which in itself is just a feeling one gets, not proof of divine presence. After all, non-Christians have spiritual moments too. It's a universal condition of humanity and probably related to the same mechanism by people get chills when they see a good movie.

I was not raised religious and don't spend my time "believing" there is no God. I just wait for the evidence. So far it's quite skimpy. In the 2000 years since Christ, a lot of phenomena (thunder & lightning, comets, solar eclipses) have moved from the "God did it" bucket to the "science explains it" bucket. During all that time, not *one single thing* has moved in the other direction.

I don't believe the Nuggets will win the NBA championship next year, but if they do win, I will happily accept it. By your definition, I'm a person of faith. Get real.
August 28, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

CB,

Sure, you said it after. What does that have to do with anything? I predicted you would be hateful and you proved me right. I made the prediction based on a long history of your asperity. And now you actually have the gall to say something about me increasing my wealth by murdering innocent children? Do you honestly think I am going to engage you with your tendency to say such things?
August 28, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

Oh jeez, not the whole "argument from ignorance" bit. "I'm not sure what you're talking about, please elaborate" means,"I don't have a good answer, so I'm going to pretend that you're not making sense."

What a crock. Anyone who is smart enough to sign up for a news message board and carry on a discussion is smart enough to use google. If you don't have a good response, simply state,"I do not have a good response." Don't waste everybody's time by making us do the work for you. If I were having a debate with a distinguished colleague, I'd be laughed off the stage for asking him to go grab all his various references because I'm unaware of his statements--especially those which ought to be commonly known for that particular kind of debate.

Epic fail, John. Just epic.
August 28, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

John_II, you're avoiding the issue through simplistic questions again, but OK, I’ll keep answering. Sometimes there’s a certain inner satisfaction in the exercise of tying together the different strands of an argument.

First, are we in agreement on ‘religious fundamentalism’ meaning “a deep and totalistic commitment to a belief” enforced by “absolute religious authority” and the strict avoidance of “doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.” While most obviously evidenced in the purposefully religious governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the danger to the US may be observed in those like Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, expressing his belief that it’s better to change the Constitution to match God's law, rather than try to change God's law to match man's law (paraphrased—feel free to correct me with a reference if you’d like).

You imply there’s no difference between the government support of socialism, and religion, going as far as saying “The Constitution does, in fact, specifically outlaw socialism.” Sorry, I may have skipped over the part that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of socialism…” Could you correct me on that?

I would also ask for clarification on your apparent phobia of the concept of ‘socialism.’ To what, specifically, are you referring? The social construct in which the means of production and distribution are held by government? Social Security and Medicare? Any politically liberal idea? I really can’t tell.

Finally, choosing to address only the second half of a two part position, you object to “Once you join the rest of society (and accept the benefits of belonging to said society), you do not have the right to force your rules on those who do not voluntarily agree to abide by them”…saying “that is a confusing statement. Plenty of rules are imposed on me against my will.”

Let’s bring back in the original statement (removing the extra parenthetical clauses—a weakness of my writing) and see if you find it less confusing in its entirety:

“You and whatever religion you choose…have the full right to establish the moral rules governing all those who voluntarily agree to abide by those rules. Once you join the rest of society…you do not have the right to force your rules on those who do not voluntarily agree to abide by them.”

So, is it clear the topic concerns only religious rules? And that you have freely and voluntarily accepted such religious rules in your own life? And that the Constitution prohibits you from using the power of government to mandate the imposition of your religious rules on those who have not voluntarily agreed to abide by your religion?

Although I appreciate how you remain polite and courteous, I do think this is becoming unproductive…per postsimian’s perceptive if not entirely tactful observation. I’ll judge if you’d like to continue a serious discussion, by seeing if you answer with serious content.
August 28, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Don't waste everybody's time by making us do the work for you" - postsimian

I asked malis to explain his comments. Why is that so bad? And why can't he do it?

"Anyone who is smart enough to sign up for a news message board and carry on a discussion is smart enough to use google." - postsimian

Does Google work on malis' mind? Malis said:
"Something like Sharia of Islamic Fundamentalism will have a chance to gain a foothold in America only if something like the efforts of the current Administration to subvert the Constitution are successful."

I asked him to be specific so I can follow his thinking.

I'm not sure why this has to be so confrontational. I answered all of malis' questions. I provided some personal answers to his question. How is that I'm being not being fair when I answer all of his questions but he ignores mine?

Anyone who would write "Epic fail, John. Just epic." is either (a) malis, jay, CB, anderson, or drumdance posting under a different name, or (b) an intellectually dishonest partisan who has already chosen sides regardless of the arguments presented.

It is not my fault that malis has posted some vague comments and refuses to clarify or offer specifics.
August 28, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"the danger to the US may be observed in those like Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, expressing his belief that it’s better to change the Constitution to match God's law, rather than try to change God's law to match man's law" - malis

Is that what you are so worried about? Because some failed presidential candidate wanted to legally change the Constitution to reflect some of his views on God? He has every right to attempt to do so. Obviously, he cannot legally fight for an amendment that would, let's say, require all citizens to pray to Jesus three times a day or display a cross on their front lawn. But he can surely fight for an amendment to outlaw abortion even if he personally believes that it is God's law to do so. You didn't mention Huckabee in your previous comments. You mentioned the Bush administration. So I asked you to be specific. And you respond with something about Huckabee.

"Sorry, I may have skipped over the part that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of socialism…” Could you correct me on that?" - malis

Yes. The Constitution explicitly bans socialism by enumerating what the federal government can and cannot do. The Constitution was purposely designed to put great restraints on the federal government and allow each State to largely decide its own fate. Specifically, Article I, Section 8 enumerates the responsibilities of the federal government. No where do I see a clause for a government-managed retirement fund, a government-managed health care system, a government-managed education system or a government-managed food & drug testing institution. And, I have not seen a single amendment to the Constitution that authorizes any of those programs. Perhaps I missed it. Do you know what section of the Constitution authorizes those programs?

"And that the Constitution prohibits you from using the power of government to mandate the imposition of your religious rules on those who have not voluntarily agreed to abide by your religion?" - malis

Well, of course I cannot force specific religious doctrines on anyone else. That was what you were arguing? My confusion is with your use of the term "religious doctrines". If, because of my religion, I believe abortion is wrong, do I have a right to fight for the banning of abortion? I do. Do I have the right to force others receive Holy Communion? Of course not.
August 28, 2008

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

FreeToChoose writes:

Exactly how many of you are actually trying to prove Campos' point about how fundamentalists "combine considerable arrogance with a level of intellectual naivete that can be charming in precocious children, but is merely annoying in adults?"

Astonishingly, many of you who are seeking to tear the article apart are actually making Campos' point for him!!!!

You people make me laugh...
August 28, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

John, you're not fooling anyone. Nobody here seems to have a problem with your arguments, though they disagree with them. I, and I'm assuming others as well, have a problem with your methods. You're asking basic and superficial questions about things which are A) obvious and plainly stated and are B) avoiding questions by answering them with questions. Who's ignoring who, John?

To wit: Malis' point with the Sharia Law comment is self-evident. With the way our current administration is allowing religion to slip between the cracks in the wall of separation, it's only a matter of time before religious law is able to replace laws that aren't based on religion. As it currently stands, neither Islamic law nor Christian law can do such while the wall of separation between church and state stands.

I'm reminded of the story of the Dutch boy and the dike: if the hole isn't plugged, the whole thing will come crashing down in a matter of time. Wouldn't you know it, I didn't even have to use google to understand his point.

You're wrong, by the way, about my identity. Call me what you will, I'm not the one using cop-outs and calling them arguments. If you want to know who I am, google the word "postsimian" to find my site (which I'm courteous enough not to link). I'll be on the first page of results.

You are right about one thing, however; I've chosen sides. You see, I've had this discussion already, but unlike you, I'm capable of changing my mind with evidence. Make a good argument and you'll get my attention. If any of it looks like what I've seen so far, then you're right, I'll stay on my side regardless of the arguments presented.

The point, John, is you're being intentionally obtuse and nobody is impressed with it.

-----

Bobba, you obviously haven't been reading the thread. If you can't keep up, I wouldn't bother responding. It's not terribly stylish of you.
August 28, 2008

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"To wit: Malis' point with the Sharia Law comment is self-evident. With the way our current administration is allowing religion to slip between the cracks in the wall of separation, it's only a matter of time before religious law is able to replace laws that aren't based on religion. As it currently stands, neither Islamic law nor Christian law can do such while the wall of separation between church and state stands." - postsimian

You are simply repeating malis' vague comment almost verbatim. How does that explain anything? What *specifically* has the Bush administration done to allow "religion to slip between the cracks in the wall of separation"? If you want me to accept your premise, you have to at least be clear about it first.

Again, it is not my fault if I ask about the Bush administration and I get something about Huckabee instead. Malis seemed to imply that something Bush has done has brought us closer to the equivalent of Sharia Law here in the USA. That is a pretty serious charge. But how can I comment on it if I do not know what you or malis is specifically referring to?
August 28, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

Specifically: faith-based initiatives, referring to Iraq as a crusade or holy war, and most importantly, stating that his inspiration and main source of guidance comes not from advisers or experts, but from his communication with God. Just read his inauguration speech, for cryin' out loud.

This is not secret knowledge. If you don't know these basic facts or are unable to look them up yourself when they're referenced, maybe you really ought not be having such a debate. Carry on if you must, but it's actually kind of embarrassing to watch.

Moving on... John, the Constitution does not explicitly ban socialism. You'd have made a better case by citing the 10th Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the ability "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof." Sounds a heck of a lot like socialism to me. It sure isn't captialism or a free market. Looking at that, I'd say it specifically endorses economic socialism.

What you're trying to say is that because something is not specifically listed in I:8, Congress can't touch it. Our national legislature has no business, well, legislating! Not a strong argument by any means, but instead wanders into the absurd.

As for Malis' statement on Huckabee, the greater idea is that politicians--Republicans in particular--are pushing a religious agenda and have, as of this election with the Rick Warren interviews, made Religion (especially Christianity) a litmus for gaining elected office. Since we're already on the subject of the Constitution, take a look at Article VI, section 3: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The fear isn't specifically about Huckabee, it's about the agenda that a certain faction is trying to push. The notion that "he has every right to attempt to do so." The Constitution specifically bans it, so explain to me how an attempt to do so is legal? If I attempt to murder somebody but don't pull it off, I still go to prison for trying. Shoplifters who get caught trying to steal still get arrested as if they had already stolen something. Why would it be any different for something which affects all citizens of the United States?

I will give you this: the reason your views on abortion are fair game is because it presents an ethical issue, not a religious one.
August 28, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Specifically: faith-based initiatives, referring to Iraq as a crusade or holy war, and most importantly, stating that his inspiration and main source of guidance comes not from advisers or experts, but from his communication with God." - postsimian

I do not support faith-based initiatives. And I do agree that they are unconstitutional. But not because it doles out money to religious charities but because it doles out money period. The other items you mentioned are not valid.

"If you don't know these basic facts or are unable to look them up yourself when they're referenced, maybe you really ought not be having such a debate. Carry on if you must, but it's actually kind of embarrassing to watch." - postsimian

Stop the lecturing. If you feel I am not worthy of debate, then maybe you should not debate me. But stop telling me to look things up. Be more specific and I wouldn't have to look anything up.

"You'd have made a better case by citing the 10th Amendment which says ..." - postsimian

Sure. But first I need to establish the section where those powers are enumerated.

"Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the ability "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof." Sounds a heck of a lot like socialism to me." - postsimian

Really? That section outlines some basic government services that the federal government should provide. That is not socialism.

"What you're trying to say is that because something is not specifically listed in I:8, Congress can't touch it. Our national legislature has no business, well, legislating!" - postsimian

I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. That enumeration does not prevent the legislature from legislating. It simply forms a framework for the legislature to work with. Why even bother enumerating those items if it was intended that the legislature could assume federal responsibility for virtually anything it wanted to assume control of?
August 28, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"As for Malis' statement on Huckabee, the greater idea is that politicians--Republicans in particular--are pushing a religious agenda" - postsimian

Huckabee was rejected by the Republican Party in his quest for the presidency.

"as of this election with the Rick Warren interviews, made Religion (especially Christianity) a litmus for gaining elected office." - postsimian

Nonsense. There was no such litmus. Both candidates volunteered to the forum. Either one of the candidates could declined the invitation in favor of a standard debate forum.

"The fear isn't specifically about Huckabee,...The Constitution specifically bans it, so explain to me how an attempt to do so is legal?" - postsimian

Ban what? Doesn't the "it" depend on exactly what Huckabee or a "certain faction" is trying to push? Again, a religious faction has every right to push for the abolition of abortion based on their religious beliefs. That same faction cannot, however, attempt to force everyone to post a cross on their lawn.

"I will give you this: the reason your views on abortion are fair game is because it presents an ethical issue, not a religious one." - postsimian

We are in complete agreement on this issue as I see it. I think the point here is obvious. Most if not all the issues that I see the religious push for are ethical issues motivated by religious beliefs.
August 28, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

"...are not valid."

In terms of violating the law, no, they don't apply. In terms of revealing the attitude and agenda we're dealing with, they are most important.

"Stop the lecturing."

Have it your way. But from here on out, anything you conveniently claim not to understand will be considered a conceded point unless there's reasonable doubt as to whether you couldn't have figured it out on your own or an admitted misspeak or lack of clarity on my part. I'm not going to hold your hand.

"That is not socialism."

Then you don't know what socialism is, because that is de facto socialism. As for "basic government services," you may be interested to know that it is the Federal Reserve, not the Federal government, which prints and regulates our money. The Federal Reserve has a deceptive name, as it is a private banking institution which does not merely provide money, it loans it to the government--at interest. Shows how much private enterprise gives a hoot about the Constitution.

"I am saying it."

You can't selectively apply a rigid interpretation of the Constitution at one point, then interpret things liberally when it suits your views. It's either one, the other, or neither; a greedy interpretation is a fallacious one. As such, I'm going to consider that argument invalid.

"Huckabee was rejected."

Huckabee was embraced by a large portion of the conservative Christian voting bloc which is widely credited for giving the Republicans control of Congress and electing Bush in 2000 and 2004.

"There was no such litmus."

That's bull and you know it. Had either candidate declined the invitation for such a hyped event, the opposing party would smear them as being anti-religious and "un-Christian," which for some reason resonates as an insult to many people. If religion is not a litmus, then why were the candidates asked how Jesusy they are at all? Because Christian fundamentalists are pushing an agenda to give the question an unconstitutional legitimacy for holding elected office. Had either candidate said they were irreligious, atheist, or anything other than Christian for that matter, they'd suffer from it politically by way of unjust criticism. Refusing to acknowledge this is ignoring the obvious, plain and simple.

"...ethical issues motivated by religious beliefs."

Keep in mind that it's okay to pray in school. Fundamentalists want mandatory school prayer. Fundamentalists are also trying to pervert schools by introducing junk science which forces religion into a curriculum, thereby creating an ethical issue. Gays existing and being treated equally in the eyes of the law does not hurt Christianity nor force secularism into their religion. Denying them equal legal rights because of religious dogma, on the other hand, presents a serious ethical civil rights issue.

Without religion, an ethical situation would not exist. Do you see the problem here?
August 28, 2008

2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

FreeToChoose writes:

John_II:

Yeah, these posts are full of respect for others' ideas and devoid of pompous posing... sure... a huh... yep... keep going... keep spinning the argument off into other nonsense bursting with pomposity.

Fundamentalists UNITE on this thread in your POMPOUS displays of intransigence!
August 28, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

don't forget requiring schools to teach abstinence only sex ed to receive federal education funds, obstructing embryonic stem cell research because of ignorance dogmatic beliefs, supporting discriminatory legislation opposing equal rights for homosexuals, supporting teaching creationism in school, etc, etc, etc.

nice try john...but no...either you support taliban style influence in gov't...whether it be here or in the middle east...or you don't.

there's not a lot of middle ground here.

so...where do you stand...or are you still running from that one...i haven't really been keeping up with the new dance steps....
August 28, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

Many of us don't like the antics of the "less self-confident souls." And sometimes they're a danger to the world.

What they do in private is fine.
August 28, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"...anything you conveniently claim not to understand will be considered a conceded point..." - postsimian

Talk about convenient...

"Then you don't know what socialism is, because that is de facto socialism." - postsimian

It is not socialism. The government is allowed and expected to provide basic services and infrastructure. Even if you choose to believe that the limited services that the Constitution grants the federal government to provide is socialism, you still have to admit that those limited authorizations effectively caps (in theory anyway) the expansion of the federal federal government into widespread socialism. In other words, if you believe the Constitution allows for 1% socialism, you must admit that it denies 99% socialism.

"...I'm going to consider that argument invalid." - postsimian

Which argument?

"If religion is not a litmus, then why were the candidates asked how Jesusy they are at all?" - postsimian

Why ask any non-policy related questions? Why discuss family or marriage? People want to know more about their candidate than just their policy stances. They want to get a sense of what makes a candidate tick. And there's also the gotcha element that modern interviewers love. I suspect that the Jesus question was asked not as a litmus test for making sure the candidate believes in Jesus. It was most likely an attempt to find out if a candidate is being honest about his stated beliefs no matter what they are. For example, Pelosi's recent statement regarding abortion and the Catholic Church exposed herself as either a liar, an idiot, or both. Non-Catholics should be just as concerned about her position as Catholics.

The most blatant litmus test I can recall was set by CNN during those YouTube "debates". One of the questions demanded the candidates to answer if they believe every word in the Bible. This was an obvious attempt to point out religious candidates. Interestingly, that question was never asked of the Democrat candidates.
August 28, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Fundamentalists are also trying to pervert schools by introducing junk science which ...on the other hand, presents a serious ethical civil rights issue.

Without religion, an ethical situation would not exist. Do you see the problem here?" - postsimian

You are not digging deep enough. The root of the problem is not religion, it is socialism. How could "fundamentalists" force others to learn "junk science" if the government did not run our schools? The same goes for marriage. These ethical situation arise because the government has gone outside the Constitution into education, marriage, health care, etc. If the Constitution were followed, these things would not be an issue. So, of course, when liberals scream for government control of health care, they should know that they are opening a whole new can of worms: each new generation of politicians will now be able to shape health care according to their personal whims. That is the irony here: it is liberalism's initial violation of the Constitution that opens the door to new violations.
August 28, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

Oh!
Sorry, this is a little off-topic, but I found it hilarious.

We had those tornadoes touch down out East of Denver a little while ago, and the news station had this woman on camera. She was telling how her real-time prayers had an immediate affect on the tornado she was observing some distance away.

She prayed for it to go away, and whoosh, it did! It touched down again in a different location, and she prayed, and whoosh, it did! She was absolutely convinced her power of prayer was doing this--just for her!

Often the media actually tries to protect people from embarrassing themselves .... but not this time. What a riot.
August 28, 2008

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"don't forget requiring schools to teach abstinence only sex ed to receive federal education funds, obstructing embryonic stem cell research because of ignorance dogmatic beliefs, supporting discriminatory legislation opposing equal rights for homosexuals, supporting teaching creationism in school, etc, etc, etc." - jay

jay,

Blame the unconstitutional Dept. of Education for giving federal control over education. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government should be in the business of researching embryonic stem cells? Private enterprise was already researching that. The same goes for marriage. Gays are actually asking for more government supervision in their private lives. So, unless you are willing to define marriage in the Constitution, it is left to each State to decide. That position is actually shared by Edwards, Hillary, Obama, and McCain.

"nice try john...but no...either you support taliban style influence in gov't...whether it be here or in the middle east...or you don't.

there's not a lot of middle ground here." - jay

Hmm, that's your new question to me now? Ok, let me think...my answer is...I do not support Taliban-style influence in government.
August 28, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

john...still not answering the question, eh?

alright...i'm heading out for the weekend...you work on that and get back to me.
August 28, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

I'm sorry, but how on earth is "socialism" the root cause of all problems? Are you one of those Fox News Conservatives? If you are, I can't believe I wasted my time.
August 28, 2008

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

I think I see what you're doing now. You're confusing socialism with authoritarianism. By the way, it is not the creation of money that makes it a socialist clause, it is the regulation of that money's value. Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this. You simply can't argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, no offense.
August 28, 2008

4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

One last thing, before I go: it is not socialism that causes people to be forced into a behavior, but authoritarianism. Authoritarianism leads to fascism, and we all know what that's about. Do yourself a favor and go to politicalcompass (dot) org and take a look at the 2008 primaries. One side is close to the center, and the other is on the authoritarian fringe. Keep this in mind the next time you consider blabbering on about things you're uninformed about.
August 28, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"john...still not answering the question, eh?" - jay

What have I not answered?

"Are you one of those Fox News Conservatives?" - postsimian

There must be some kind of law of liberalism that forces them to utter the words "Fox News" or "Faux News" as if that were actual legitimate points.

"You're confusing socialism with authoritarianism." - postsimian

No. I'm just talking about both. Actually, one leads to the other. If liberals did not constantly increase the realm of the federal government's control, many of these problems would not have a chance to exist.

"Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this. You simply can't argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, no offense." - postsimian

How gracious of you.
August 28, 2008

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"One last thing, before I go: it is not socialism that causes people to be forced into a behavior, but authoritarianism." - postsimian

Authoritarianism would not be able to exist in all of the examples you and jay cited if the Constitution were not violated by socialistic tendencies. That is the irony I was referring to.
August 28, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm not interested in your interpretation of constitutional law, john.

i'm not interested in whether or not it's legal for the taliban (whether american or middle eastern) to do what they do.

now...what i am interested is your opinion...specifically your answer to the question i asked above.

it's a simple yes or no answer.

so which is it?

yes.

or

no.
August 28, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

jay,

I answered your question at the end of my 3:35 post:

""nice try john...but no...either you support taliban style influence in gov't...whether it be here or in the middle east...or you don't.

there's not a lot of middle ground here." - jay

Hmm, that's your new question to me now? Ok, let me think...my answer is...I do not support Taliban-style influence in government."
August 28, 2008

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

no...you didn't....as i addressed in my earlier post.

yes or no to original question?

one word.

anything else is dancing fluff.
August 28, 2008

5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

what is the original question jay? You asked me multiple questions on this thread and I think I answered them all. But if I missed one, go ahead and post it again.
August 28, 2008

9:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Secular writes:

This is the worst unrelated debate to an article I've ever seen!!!

And John_II has no clue what he's talking about. Liberals are the cause of big/authoritarian government? Where have you BEEN for the past 8 years? Socialism is not intrinsically authoritarian. Totalitarianism calling itself socialism is.

For the record, now I'm not even sure what the original question was. Either way, Johnnie-boy, stop dancing around it. jay, I wouldn't waste your time asking. That dude is a quack.

just my 2 cents.
August 28, 2008

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Liberals are the cause of big/authoritarian government? Where have you BEEN for the past 8 years? Socialism is not intrinsically authoritarian." - Secular

Perhaps you should reread my comments and think about them a bit more. Socialism may not be authoritarianism. But it certainly enables it.

I would highly recommend that you read Hayek's The Road To Serfdom.
August 29, 2008

12:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

kooltothekore writes:

Wow! What a great article about Dogmatic atheism. I would like to say that your column proves or at least confirms a Biblical truth. Hebrews 11:3 states "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." My point is this: one cannot "scientifically prove" Creationism or evolution. You really choose to "believe" one or the other. To understand the word "Scientific," we mean something that is "verifiable" and "observable." Evolutionists speculate that the world is millions of years old, but they can't prove it. They cannot produce any million year old video showing what actually happened. No one has been around more than a hundred years or so to really speak as a witness and yet they adamantly and dogmatically declare that their dogma (evolution) is true. I cannot "scientifically prove" creation, but I believe it because the Bible tells me so. But I wasn't there when it all began so I have to take God's Word for it.
August 29, 2008

6 a.m.

Suggest removal

carryBIGstick writes:

Wow! I usually detest Campos, however, this piece made sense.
Granted next piece Campos will do I'll disagree with.
August 29, 2008

7:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

postsimian writes:

kooltothekore - actually, we have already proven it. This is what got the Creationist crowd in a fit. Except, replace millions with billions.

Secular - don't pay attention to him. The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
August 29, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

AGermain writes:

Well, I am an atheist. You will have to judge from my comments below whether you consider me a "fundamentalist" atheist.

On the one hand, I embrace the idea that the world is a deeply complex and mysterious place, which human beings have in all likelihood barely begun to understand.

But on the other hand, I find that most religious beliefs are "nonsense", and are NOT just as rationally defensible as atheism.

One of the tests of a rational conclusion is whether the strength of the conclusion is consistent with the strength of the evidence. Almost all religious beliefs fail this test. Religious people tend to hold their beliefs quite strongly -- many saying they "know" this or that to be true; others are willing to die for their beliefs. But where is the strong evidence? Missing, as far as I have observed.

Theists claim the existence of an entity with supernatural powers, but which cannot be observed. The burden of proof is therefore on them. But the evidence is totally lacking.

Further, consider all the mutually exclusive religions. If one is right, all the others must necessarily be wrong. Since no one religion includes over half of the the worldwide religious population, it follows that the majority of the world's religious believers must therefore believe in an incorrect religion!

How could these incorrect beliefs have come into existence? It seems to me that they must have been made up by humans, probably based on superstition. (i.e., Man created God in his imagination).

So it is clear that humans have a propensity to create gods. Going just one small step further, it seems most likely that ALL religions were created in this way.

I do not claim to know the answers to the "big" questions, but I think it's silly to make up nonsense just because we would like to have these answers.
August 30, 2008

12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

kooltothekore writes:

Reply to postsimian-actually evolutionists have proven nothing except spend millions of dollars trying to prove the impossible.
Perhaps you are not aware of the evidence against evolution.
I could bore you to tears with such facts as the shrinking sun, the moon dust accumulation, the circular reasoning of those who try to determine the age of the earth by looking at strata layers, and the DNA molecule itself.
My point remains, you cannot prove creation or evolution by scientific means and by scientific I mean "observable" and "verifiable" means. Whatever you believe you believe by "faith."
August 30, 2008

7 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

John_II

>>What a load of nonsense. Science is a recent human activity? What nonsense.<<

It's not nonsense, its an accurate statement. Science is indeed a recent (last 150 years or so) human activity.

>>Science is simply the study of our surroundings.<<

No it isn't, that is a very simplistic and flawed description of science. Science is a method used to understand and not just our surroundings (ex. much of computer science is pure abstraction) and involves formulating explanations as hypothesis and theories and testing them.

>>Humans have been studying our surroundings since day one.<<

No. Studying is not the same thing as science.
August 30, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

kooltothekore -
>>Perhaps you are not aware of the evidence against evolution.
I could bore you to tears with such facts as the shrinking sun, the moon dust accumulation, the circular reasoning of those who try to determine the age of the earth by looking at strata layers, and the DNA molecule itself.<<

All of which is a bunch of malarkey. For example the age of the earth is NOT determined by "looking at strata laayers" - that's flat out wrong.

Another example - the moon dust argument is even rejected by many so-called "scientific creationists" - for example this from none other than answers genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7...
"Conclusion

So are there any loopholes in the evolutionists’ case that the current apparent meteoritic dust influx to the lunar surface and the quantity of dust found in the thin lunar surface dust layer and the regolith below do not contradict their multi-billion year timescale for the moon’s history? Based on the evidence we currently have the answer has to be that it doesn’t look like it."

>>My point remains, you cannot prove creation or evolution by scientific means and by scientific I mean "observable" and "verifiable" means. Whatever you believe you believe by "faith."<<

Science doesn't "prove" things. In order for something to be science it must, among other things, be falsifiable which evolution is but creationism is not.
August 31, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

about the morality of capital punishment.

Well, what is the morality about murder?

Anwer that one Campos!

Nuff Said!
September 1, 2008

7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnStockwell writes:

"I could bore you to tears with such facts as the shrinking sun, the moon dust accumulation, the circular reasoning of those who try to determine the age of the earth by looking at strata layers, and the DNA molecule itself." - CL

CL, you would bore us to tears by revealing that science isn't one of your strong suits.
For the folks at home, a place where many hyperbolae and canards of the creationist movement
are refuted is the Talk Origins archive at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Also, for the folks at home, science isn't about refuting religion. However, if a person absolutely
must have religious texts and scientific results agree, something has to give. In CL's case,
he would rather believe the anti-science of the creationist movement than actually learn
about the science that has led to the technology that feeds, clothes, and keeps him from
freezing in the dark. For folks with common sense, somehow if "creation science" were
so darn good, then wouldn't there be some technological payback from it? Yet, we don't
have creationist oil companies, or creationist technology companies of any variety. Creationists
have had decades to do something, anything, but all they generate is angry rhetoric, and
paper tomes that people like our friend CL spend their hard earned money to buy.

What puzzles me is why people think that religious traditions have to agree with physical
evidence in the first place? Could it be that the scientists are doing a better job of creating
a useful view of the universe than can be gotten from using (or abusing) religion for
the same purpose? Could it also be that the religions have missed the boat by divisively
emphasizing literalist book worship over the needs of people?

With the antiscience of the creationist movement, including the modern "intelligent design"
movement, is it any wonder that more vocal atheists, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins,
have gone on the offensive against religion?
September 1, 2008

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetaReal writes:

but I am sure that there can be no arguing that human caused climate change is real. on that question/fact Mr. Campos accepts no argument.

What a hippycrit.
September 1, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

JohnStockwell, try re-reading my post. I called what you quote me as writing malarky - I was quoting kooltothekore.

"In CL's case,
he would rather believe the anti-science of the creationist movement than actually learn
about the science that has led to the technology that feeds, clothes, and keeps him from
freezing in the dark."

Nonsense, I'm about as pro-science and anti-creationist as they come.
September 2, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnStockwell writes:

My apologies to CL. Indeed, it is kooltothecore who my post above was really about.
September 2, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"No it isn't, that is a very simplistic and flawed description of science. Science is a method used to understand and not just our surroundings (ex. much of computer science is pure abstraction) and involves formulating explanations as hypothesis and theories and testing them." - CL

Webster's: "Science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"

Are you telling me that prehistoric man did not formulate hypothesis and theories in regards to hunting, shelter, foraging, etc, and subsequently put them to the test? You mean to say that those ancient hunters just randomly discovered the best group hunting techniques, the most appropriate weapon for their prey, or the best way to build shelter?

Of course they formulated theories and tested those theories.

Perhaps, in forming standard scientific methodologies and templates, science has become more efficient and effective. But that is also relevant to the historical context. Modern science, which is really what you are referring to, would be mostly useless for prehistoric man. It would take way too much time and effort to document theories and test results in an attempt to share the information with others. Even if they did have the time, their groups were so small that it would have been much easier to simple tell their peers what they think might work, what they think might not work, and how it worked. I bet they drew most of their plans with a stick in the dirt, debated it, tried it out, and evaluated the results. And the next time they went hunting, they would talk about their plans to see if it needed to be changed to achieve better results.

While the process of acquiring knowledge has certainly become much more effective, this just means we have become better at learning. But that is not proof that science is a relatively new concept. Modern science is, of course, by definition, new. But, 500 years from now, when scientific methodologies may change dramatically from current methodologies, someone might argue that science has only been around for 50 years or so because that is when the world-changing, microchip-enhanced, networked cloned-brain system was adopted. And that someone would still be wrong.
September 2, 2008

6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

John_II

>>Webster's: "Science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"<<

You forgot also from Websters:
2 a: a department of **systematized knowledge** as an object of study <the science of theology>
3 a: knowledge or a **system of knowledge** covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through **scientific method**
b: such knowledge or such a **system of knowledge** concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a **system or method** reconciling practical ends with **scientific laws** <cooking is both a science and an art>

Or Oxford:
noun
1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the **systematic study** of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
2 a **systematically** **organized body** of knowledge on any subject.

So yes John, you used "a very simplistic and flawed description of science"

When Anderson wrote "Before the development of science" which definition do you suppose he intended - the one single definition you found on Webster? Seeing that he wrote "there was a lot more we didn't know or understand" and not that we didn't know or understand anything, he clearly implies that knowledge and understanding existed prior to the development of science. Also since he wrote the development and not accumulation of science, he was obvious speaking of science as a system.

>>Are you telling me that prehistoric man did not formulate hypothesis and theories in regards to hunting, shelter, foraging, etc, and subsequently put them to the test?<<

Being prehistoric, who's to say what method they used and if it systematic? Did prehistoric man distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory?

>>You mean to say that those ancient hunters just randomly discovered the best group hunting techniques, the most appropriate weapon for their prey, or the best way to build shelter?<<

No.

Besides, what makes you think they were the "best" and "most appropiate" anyway? Clearly they weren't or thy would not have been improved upon.

>>Of course they formulated theories and tested those theories<<

And you know this as opposed them using say, trial and error for example, how? From prehistoric historical records?

>>Modern science, which is really what you are referring to, would be mostly useless for prehistoric man.<<

Actually it's what Anderson referred to start with. Since you admit it would be "useless for prehistoric man" you pretty much refuted your own response to Anderson.
September 16, 2008

8:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

compos_mentis writes:

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

CAMPOS: Dogmatic atheism

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 27, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs