On 10/27/2014 8:10 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
It's a funny place for Barry to roll out his new initiative, this "New
Approach for Atheists in Dealing With Believers", but I guess it
hi-lights the dearth of other places where he has any standing. You'd
think this manifesto would be better placed on an atheist site (of
which I am sure there are plenty), but he could run into a little
trouble if they check his bona fides. Actually, I guess that explains
it. (-:
>
/These are obviously just planted messages from Barry in order to get
angry responses - typical trollish stuff. //
//
//In Barry's case, it's interesting because everyone knows he believes
in Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. //But, he doesn't want to talk
about it because it's so confusing. //
//
//We need to keep it real simple for Barry - things are either black or
white; there are no shades of grey with Barry. He is not very subtle or
nuanced.
He probably doesn't even realize that a belief in free-will is opposed
to a belief in karma. //Maybe he is actually thinking he has complete
control over his circumstances and that he is not affected by his past
or present actions.
Maybe Barry got confused when he read about Sam Harris and his Tibetan
Buddhist teacher. //
//
//Go figure./
>
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote :
It sounds like you've found a new vocation, Barry.
Go for it.
Put up posters, or something. Organize some introductory lectures.
What do we call it? "The New Atheism, by Barry W"
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
Intelligent and well-written article about the religious apologetics
that is rampant these days, and why intelligent people shouldn't stand
for it. The author makes many good points, but among my favorites are
the following, in which I've highlighted my favorite section in red:
How are we to rid ourselves of religion? I don’t know a nonbeliever
who considers it likely that we will. Even Christopher Hitchens
likened it to the rats of Camus’ “The Plague,” always scurrying about
in a city’s sewers, ready to spring forth on us when we have forgotten
about the pestilence they carry. But we can take action to ensure that
we do not unwittingly favor religion’s continuation by taking stances,
both public and private. (I wrote about this previously for Salon here
<http://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/15_ways_atheists_can_stand_up_for_rationality/>.)
Nonbelievers need to approach faith as a subject like any other, one
we can talk about and criticize without fear of causing offense – or,
in the case of Islam, concern for our physical safety.
This is in fact our constitutional right. The First Amendment forbids
Congress from establishing an official religion and protects free
speech – including speech that offends the sentiments of believers. If
we disbelieve what religion’s canon tells us, we need to say so
openly, and in mixed company, pointing out that no rational person
could believe it or accept it as true and valid, were it not for
indoctrination, immaturity, willful abandonment of reason, fear, or
simple feeblemindedness.
We can also cease displaying knee-jerk respect for those who propagate
faith. A priest, rabbi, or imam should merit no more deference than a
witch doctor – all traffic in gullibility, human misery and
vulnerability, and none can prove the efficacy of their ministrations.
We must point out the inherent dangerousness of faith itself – of
believing things to be true without evidence. The British poet Perce
Bysshe Shelley, writing two centuries ago, put it bluntly: “God is an
hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the /onus
probandi/” – the burden of proof – “rests on the theist.” Claims made
on the basis of religion should be met by demands for evidence.
Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists aren’t the
issue, apologists for religions are
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/>
image
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/>
Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists ...
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/>
Major religions all contain macabre fables, explicit injunctions for
vile behavior no civilzed person should accept
View on www.salon.com
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/>
Preview by Yahoo
