romansh

To hammer home my point (if I may) Harm our our planet, natural, beneficial ... these are all perceptions, perfectly valid ones of course. If a gamma ray burst from a nearby star, caused the exinction of human kind, would that be natural, beneficial to life forms on Earth and could it be considered harm? Campbell proposed three broad classes of religion 1) Ones that embraced the great circle of life - to go all Lion King on you. These are typified by the early aboriginal religions. 2) Those that want want to minimize the impact on the Earth ,,, Jainism and some Buddhist traditions are exemplars. 3) And finally those that want to make this Earth a better place, The Abrahamic ones are classic examples of this. Personally I go for 1) as a guiding light. Veganism I would class as a 2) and if you put a 'should' in there somewhere it becomes a 3).

They might matter to other people who have strong bias one way or the other. But our choices do have effects ... I am not denying that. For example if tomorrow I flipped a switch and everyone went vegan ... what would the consequences be, especially to all the existing farm animals? Evolution of farm animals is somewhat directed at the moment, but what would happen to these animals? Would we castrate them all and let them live out their lives. Thereby causing the extinction farm animals and change of the current landscape of farmland. By flipping that switch I would responsible for some kind of "bad". If you don't want eat meat, fair enough, but I would argue against using the word should. Should is the first step towards dogma. ps As an after thought ... I need to be careful here ... my not using should could become my dogma, if you see what I mean.

If it matters to you, then fair enough. I'm sure to someone somewhere your food choice will matter also. But the universe itself will continue to unfold whether or not you have lamb with your mint sauce.

I would extend choice to evert activity full stop. We make choices in the same sense a river chooses its path as it meanders across a plain. That we see things as good or bad is interesting, but I think we will find good and bad matches our desires and fears ... so to speak. This is really closely related to the free will thread and I do not wish to derail this thread.

Just make sure it is not written by the Discovery Institute though ...

Paul The short answer - if you want to. From Campbell/Nietzsche: But when the camel is well loaded, it struggles to its feet and runs out into the desert, where it is transformed into a lion — the heavier the load that had been carried, the stronger the lion will be. Now, the task of the lion is to kill a dragon, and the name of the dragon is “Thou shalt.” On every scale of this scaly beast, a “thou shalt” is imprinted: some from four thousand years ago; others from this morning’s headlines. Whereas the camel, the child, had to submit to the “thou shalts,” the lion, the youth, is to throw them off and come to his own realization.

Welcome Slash As a part time resident agnostic let me say hi. Atheist is one of those funny words ... technically I suppose I am one, but the concept of god is not that important to me, so it would be odd for me to define myself in terms of something that is of little interest. Now how we handle knowledge is far more interesting and more relevant to our everyday lives. (At least to me). Can I recommend Karen Armstrong's The Case for God to your friend. It won't convince any non-believer but it has some interesting views about religion. (Armstrong describes herself as a Christian). Anyway ... welcome again. rom

Well as an avowed agnostic I would advocate for at least strong caution to belief,, are you suggesting I am fearful? The faith that I have seen from fundametalists does no openly contain any doubt and uncertainty. That to me is a more fearful response. To openly admit and see areas of doubt and uncertainty, is that not a strength? As a scientist I do not fear uncertainty, I maesure it. I think we might be using nonbelief slightly differently. Now on a pragmatic level, everyday I make choices, I wonder if I fill after the fact the reasons for the choices and they pass as beliefs.

I would disagree with this statement. They have a common cause (as in effect) but then we all do. They might have common traits (strident perhaps) They might both debate (for and against) a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example I can't think of one prominent New Atheist who suggests a metaphorical interpretation is not more reasonable than a literal one. Atheism itself is not wholly characterized by belief, but more so by a lack of belief. Hope this helps Soma

This reminds me of one of Joseph Campbell's anecdotes ... where religious people of various stripes got together at some conference. The monks from the various faiths got quite well and had an understanding of one another. Whereas the theologians were stuck in their own doctrines/dogmas. Not suggesting we should become monks or anything.

Paul Your first sentence carries a major misunderstanding (sadly even amongst scientists sometimes). Science does not provide answers that are beyond doubt and uncertainty. Science generally provides us better models of our existence than say chicken entrails or astrology. It provides a model based on cause and effect, and past observation. It does not always provide an accurate prediction George EP Box, All models are wrong, but some are useful. This is a useful mantra for scientists and mere mortals. My point was, that in science the hargey bargey of scientific discourse (usually polite) moves closer to the truth. We will never get there and sometimes we even take a wrong turning. Science should be viewed over centuries not today's headlines or even decades. So perhaps we can argue religion is moving in the "right" direction with some bumps like literalism. Have you read The Evolution of God by Robert Wright? An interesting read.

I agree, we can't be sure. Sure we can be wrong. Take the title of this thread ... it can be read in two ways... New Atheists that exhibit hate or it could be about the hate that is exhibited towards New Atheists. I guessed it was the former and the post clarified it for me. I have no problem with labels so long as there is a clarification that goes along with them. But quite often it is the underlying emotion that is embedded with label that we should watch for. On some fora (some people's minds) a New Atheist is a derogatory term that reflects the mind set. And of course the converse is also true.

Going off topic here ... Being Jesus inspired ... While I might not be directly I may be indirectly ... I personally prefer Christ inspired ... although I understand Christ is mythical character and probably a composite of real people and various traditions. Incidently ... you may enjoy this a compilation of what Weyler thinks can be actually ascribed to Jesus. I accept that Hitchens disagreed with the lady. Not overly preoccupied on the how, but more on his reasons for him doing so.

In one sense I do not care either, but in another I do ... If I care enough then the labels and definitions they use matter to me, especially if I want to understand them. I think this could be a case where Hitchens was too attached to a definition. But at some point we have to agree on the word Christian. For Hitchens it had two specific requirements. I suspect the vast majority of Christians would agree with Hitchens. And this is in line with the overall Episcopal reaction to Spong's view of where Christianity should be going. (based on the little I have read). I'd appreciate that.

Two things Pete ... the quote said nothing about the right to call yourself a Christian. He was simply talking about what for him is a meaningful definition of a Christian. Secondly the intonation of the presenter ... I doubt Hitchens had the same intonation. That can change the intention of Hitchen's phrase dramatically. And as far as the definition goes ... there have been traditional or orthodox Christians on this very forum that would agree with Hitchens on this point. Now I agree you can call yourself a liberal or progressive Christian, I have a good sense (or at least a sense) for what it might mean to each of of us who travel under that label. So what is the minimum requirements to be a progresive Christian. How about thinking the New Testament when interpreted metaphorically in certain ways can lead to insights into the human condition? Under a broad definition like this even Hitchens could have been classed as a progressive Christian ... as could I.

So when Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and the late Hithchens voice their opinions is that live and let live? They certainly don't have any direct power over you and on how your personal journey evolves.

A quote from Joseph Campbell: “You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.”

Is standing for what we believe standing against what another believes? Incidently in the scientific arena it perfectly OK to say I think Theory Z is wrong because we have evidence, a, b, c, d ... . Science thrives on comparing evidence to the theory. Surely we are not suggesting NOMA?

Hmmn? In a small way you have stood up to the homosexuality is a sin group. Is this Live and let living? I don't think so myself. When I see a child being taught that Earth is six thousand years old as a fact, what should we do, live and let live? When we have school boards insisting that intelligent design is a scientific theory, should we live and let live? I can't help thinking this stridency in New Atheism is a result of positions held by Christians where they feel science needs to be directed to a particular end result ... exemplified in the Wedge document (see above). The Wedge document (and the attitudes embedded behind it) is likely due to science slowly but steadfastly marginalizing certain theological view points. Did science (or scientists) do this intentionally? I don't think so.

I do try and avoid beliefs ... fail miserably of course. With a little bit of introspection ... the thoughts that do pop into my existence are combinations other peoples' thoughts, events that happen in my perview and other physical things like foods etc. So while I might have more sympathy for a strong atheist point of view than say a literal interpretation of the Bible, I realize the literal view, the atheistic view, the progressive view and my view for that matter are simply a reflection how a particular part of the universe has unfolded. So for me, ascribing properties, like Hate, to New Atheists or stupidity to fundamentalists is ultimately pointless. Might make us feel better or superior in some way ... but that too is an illusion.

I can agree with this. Just about every god I have managed to envisage it ain't

I don't think "New Atheists" as such condemn anybody. This seems to be the perogative of certain versions of God that throw certain sinners into some firery furnace. People like Dawkins are probably totally bewildered by beliefs like a God that created the Earth ca 6000 years ago, at which time man walked peacefully with dinosaurs, despite the evidence to the contrary. To be frank so am I. I think if New Atheists condemn anything, it is the reasoning and logic that goes into the belief; and they don't condemn the person. An interesting question is where does a person end and the belief begin? Sometimes we are so tied to our beliefs, I and my belief are inseparable.

I don't see any difference between them either. They are human and products of their experience, circumstances and the way the universe has unfolded in general.

An interpretation of the Christian message under discussion I like ... not sure it is logical, is ... it's not that we should not have enemies (or go to war or put people in prison etc) but that we should do it respectfully. All to often we demonize the opposition, just think of the prewar Germany. Or 9/11 on both sides. I think people pay lipservice to this .... love the sinner but not the sin.

Curriculum Vitae Or resume in American. edit Tot siens Coen