The article is completely misleading. Intentional or not, it deserves a large response from the Atheist community. You can read the article at:http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/04/post_47.htmlYes, this is a link to a blog so you insert your opinion there or send a letter to the editor. I recommend you do both.Here is an excerpt that deserves response:?What would a world without God look like? Well, for one, morality becomes, if not impossible, exceedingly difficult. “Thou shalt not kill” loses much of its force when reduced from commandment to a suggestion. How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history ? the end product of the random collision of molecules??
From the article:
You could simply put up a sticky note saying “I am a great person”.
This is the same attitude where childeren aren’t supposed to be on a losing team and every kid gets a medal. Sure, they feel good about themselves, but the don’t learn anything about real life.
phreedm – I agree with you; this article was in no way misleading.
What I find interesting is no one here has refuted the statements of the article. Instead, it’s turned to Christian bashing, name calling, and mud slinging. It would seem to me if the article’s claims were so easy to refute, that’s what you would do first. Seriously.
Christianity causes mental illness. Removing christianity is the first step toward fixing the problem. Deprogramming the victim won’t be successful if the christianity is not removed first.
Christians suck. Seriously.
Excuse me? I see no one more ego-centered than the self-proclaimed pastors of the United States. Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? James Dobson? no egos there, huh?
I happen to see each and every one of us as the counterparts to these religious persons today. We’re trying our best to ‘rescue’ our country from the religious zealots intent on taking our freedoms away!!!!
O REALLY? I don’t see many humble religious leaders – could you point them out for me?
Finally, if their god is all that’s keeping them from murder, then I say they should keep their imaginary friend. Better that than having all these loving christians running around with their guns and imposing death on all non-believers!
Coincidentally, I had an opinion column published today, on the subject of religion and morality, questioning the common assertion that one must believe in god to be moral.
For anyone interested, it can be found here:
“Ungodly goodness”
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=40768
Quote from the article:
?There are no secularist counterparts to Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce (the evangelical responsible for abolition of the British slave trade), Martin Luther King Jr., or the Christians ? from France to Poland ? who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.?
Quote from phreedm:
?Can anyone prove this statement as inaccurate…??
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are both atheists and they have donated billions of dollars to Africa to help with the AIDS epidemic. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda even have a foundation that collects money for different charities. This is a link to their foundation:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
Wilson Gildee is an atheist and a philanthropist who has donated large amounts of money to help poor children from single parent homes get a better education. http://forum.cygnus-study.com/archive/index.php/t-4052.html
Andrew Carnagie was an atheist. He is probably one of the best known philanthropists. He started the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911 to promote ?the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.? http://www.carnegie.org/
?Perhaps the most openly free thinking living philanthropist is George Soros, who openly stated that he did not believe in God on the December 20, 1998 broadcast of 60 Minutes. Building on the philosophy of an “open society” espoused by Karl Popper, Soros founded and has donated more than $5 billion to the Open Society Institute (OSI). The OSI aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights and economic, legal and social reform.? This taken from: http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=252&article=0
?Ted Turner, creator of CNN and TBS, is an atheist philanthropist who was named the 1990 Humanist of the Year. Turner has used his fortune to create foundations that support international cooperation and protect the environment. Perhaps his most well-known effort is the United Nations Foundation, which Turner created in 1998 with a commitment of up to $1 billion. The UN Foundation works to educate opinion leaders, policy makers and the general public on the work of the UN and to build global cooperation (while also encouraging the United States to pay its dues.? This taken from the same site as above.
Gee phreedm, that?s seven people (including Melinda Gates) who have all done major philanthropic works all without the fear of some afterlife torture and without the hope of happiness in the afterlife. These people donated their time and money simply out of the kindness of their hearts and the empathy for the human plight. I guess that proves you and the article to be wrong.
One could go through the article and refute all of the author’s opinions. Unfortunately, it is mind numbingly hollow. To suggest that one could find anything approaching the profound in the writing demonstrates the existence of considerable cranial void.
Fortunately it is just an opinion and a silly one at that.
Quote from the article:
?A universe that isn’t God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual’s well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.?
Quote from phreedm:
?This is a very profound statement…I’d be curious to know how a non-believer might disagree with this statement…?
So you and the writer of the article think that it is more ego-centered to believe in nothing having created you than to believe that some supernatural, super powerful being created humans in his image and loves you personally and created this entire universe just for humans?
RNA said, “Christianity causes mental illness.”
I think religion as a whole is itself a symptom of mental illness. Consider how an adult person who had no concept of religion would react when confronted with the absurdity of it? Somehow we all know a child’s imaginary friend is imaginary, but when it comes to an invisible man in the sky, millions of otherwise intelligent adults believe in it. It truly is childish and absurd.
Honestly, how would you react if I told you I have an imaginary friend? Yeah, he’s really powerful, too. Just yesterday I asked him for some money, and he sent me a pop-up ad for Monster.com so I could get some! He’s so awesome, you guys. If you send me some money, he’ll do stuff for you, too. I’m writing a book about him because I think everyone should talk to him and ask him for stuff. And basically if you keep not doing what you’re already not doing (you know, not killing people and stuff), he’ll take you to Hawaii when you die. My imaginary friend is so cool.
I left my two-cents worth. It’ll probably just be ignored, but it’s something I had to say.
TIM,
Indeed, your imaginary friend is awesome, but mine’s better. He takes credit whenever something goes right, and then whenever things get really shitty he blames it on his imaginary arch enemy. He also makes me bow down to him and talk to him when no one is around so people think I’m crazy, but really I’m just talking to my imaginary friend. And he loves me. I know he loves me because he sends plagues upon me. He’s just playing hard to get.
He also says I shouldn’t have sex until I get married, but he raped a virgin and got her pregnant. You know, he doesn’t even pay child support. Come to think of it, my imaginary friend is an asshole!
Comment from: evilatheistconquerer
While it’s great to give some wealth away for noble causes I believe you’ve missed the point entirely.
Name an atheist who has dedicated their life to improve the lives of others…one who has gotten down in the trenches and has personally sacrificed to improve the lives of others…not one who has only written a check from their surplus but one who has given ALL…
Fragilex ? I find two major problems with your op-ed piece.
1. What is your definition of ?good?. Your very first line is a question that it seems you attempt to answer, ?Can we be good without belief in god(s)?? What does it mean to be ?good? and where do you derive that standard?
2. Or do you answer the ?good? and ?behave morally? question when you say ?? nonbelievers who adhere to social and personal moral standards.? In other words, there is no such thing as absolute and unchanging good and evil in the world, as it is based on social and personal standards. If that is the case, then the rest of your article is moot.
?Regardless of the source of our ?moral sense?? ? ah, therein lies the rub.
Remy – “One could go through the article and refute all of the author’s opinions. Unfortunately, it is mind numbingly hollow.” That’s fine and totally your business. I just find it interesting that when a Christian writes an opinion piece about morality and atheism the atheist responses on this blog were to attack Christianity, Christians, and resort to name-calling. In that way, you’ve adequately proven his point … have you not?
phreedm,
Are you kidding me? I did cite people. Bill and Melinda Gates themselves have dedicated their lives to it! Sure, they didn’t start when they were infants, but he even quit his job so he could focus only on the foundation. He’s giving most of his money to the foundation; he’s only giving his kids a small amount of it. And Carnagie gave most of his money too. Did you even read a damn thing in those links?
Comment from: evilatheistconquerer
In short…Yes. Why would a humanist give ALL to make life a better place for their fellow humans…? A believer finds their purpose to life externally. A non-believer can only find their purpose life from within. I’ve heard it many times from this board that there is “no purpose” to life. Life just happened…
phreedm…
Who created the Red Cross?
An atheist.
phreedm,
So then the person that finds their reason for helping humanity from within rather than externally from god would be the more morally correct since they aren’t trying to get anything out of it like eternity in heaven.
Mother Theresa hurt more people than she helped. Why do people think she was such a good person? People are stupid, and turn a blind eye to the truth.
phreedm
I wish you would pay more attention.
Before you even asked
Merryatheist had already made this statement:
Having to believe that one is the object of affection and direction of an imaginary being, just in case no one else loves you is totally egocentric, as opposed to believing one is simply a part of the natural world.
No… Article has many misinformed “points”… Didn’t mention Christianity… Said the article was hollow… My opinion…. Epithet aimed at one who deserves it… When I do use name calling it is from a position of last resort and I am in a continual state of ultimate recourse when it comes to theists.
Oops, Only ‘many, was to have been bold.
remy – I need to apologize. That was not meant as an attack on you personally. I quoted you and then meant to speak to the wider group of “you” not individually “you”.
My apologies for not being more clear.
In googling Don Feder, it appears he is Jewish. For those of you on this blog who have bashed Christianity and Christians specifically for the words of this man, perhaps you should reconsider. Statements such as “Removing christianity is the first step toward fixing the problem.” are clearly blind-sighted.
An atheist like Bill Gates has done more to alleviate human suffering than any religious figure ever has. Not only does his charity work make a difference but his hand in creating computer technolgy has changed our world for the better in innumerable ways. Atheistic scientists have created the modern world we live in and thanks to them we have modern medicine, health, and an improved standard of living. If the xians had their way we would all still be living short and brutal lives fearful of a vengeful sky daddy. Fuck that.
interesting:
Here, I’ll field this.
Okay, translation is, “Define your terms a little more pedantically.”
I can’t speak for Fragilex, but I’m guessing it’s pretty much the agreed upon standard.
Hollow question #2:
Translation: “I’m sure you’re a moral relativist, let’s play word games.”
I’m a moral naturalist, so there are specific forms of good & evil (for me) – specifically doing harm on an individual or groups.
Translation: “Let’s give religion the credit.”
What rubbish.
Here’s the problem (& as you seem to be woefully misinformed on the back story) – these op-ed pieces (of crap) never ever bother to investigate. The bulk of them make un-researched assumptions, & sally forth from there.
There’s simply no effort made, in the piece under discussion, or in many, MANY others to discuss/investigate the other side of the coin.
Instead, they all seem to spew up the same boilerplate crap: point to communism, folderol about not being able to ‘absolutely prove or disprove the existence of’, & a pile of other fallacies & common misperceptions.
Let me put it in perspective: if YOU were a member of a minority, & YOU kept running into newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority, I’m betting you’d be a little less than civil about it.
It gets old pretty darn toot sweet.
fragilex:
Your opinion column is excellent. Thanks for the link.
interesting:
Uh, no you’re not.
Belief in christianity causes the believer to remove themselves from reality, that causes them do disassociate from the true meaning of life, which is to try to improve the living environment on earth. Christianity demands that its followers think in terms of fantasy after death which distances them from real life on earth.
The source of the problem is christianity, by removing christianity the mental illness of its followers will heal.
Christians know within themselves that their god is nothing more than an idea. All of a christians thoughts of living with their god idea after they die are purely selfish and self-centered, by definition they are only acting to save themselves.
Christians are stupid.
Krystalline Apostate ? I appreciate your response to my post. For the record – No. If I were in the minority and continually read “newspaper articles that spouted a load of running crap (all untrue) about YOUR minority” I would battle it with ideas, facts, and expose misconceptions ? in a calm manner. I don’t tend to resort to name-calling when I am wanting to have my ideas to be heard and received. ala “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt.
And I’m not trying to play word games with you. I’m trying to understand the conclusions that you come to as naturally as the ones I come to, albeit on opposite ends of the field.
You wrote, ?Okay, translation is, “Define your terms a little more pedantically.”
I can’t speak for Fragilex, but I’m guessing it’s pretty much the agreed upon standard.?
You?re guessing?!! I have issue with this definition of good being up to the ?agreed upon standard?, and frankly I think you do too. WHO is agreeing on this standard? So, Nazi Germans were doing ?good? in regards to the Jews because it was, afterall, the ?agreed upon standard? ? at least for the ruling party. You haven?t defined ?good? in any objective way. Nor have you objectively given me any idea of where and how you come to this conclusion of what is good and what is not.
?Hollow question #2:?
I did not deserve that.
?Translation: ?I’m sure you’re a moral relativist, let’s play word games.?
I’m a moral naturalist, so there are specific forms of good & evil (for me) – specifically doing harm on an individual or groups.?
Okay. You’re not a moral relativist, but a moral naturalist. a. What is that? And b.What is the difference? Especially since you added the “for me” qualifier. Again – how do you come to the conclusion of what is good and what is evil?
?Here’s the problem (& as you seem to be woefully misinformed on the back story) – these op-ed pieces (of crap) never ever bother to investigate. The bulk of them make un-researched assumptions, & sally forth from there.
There’s simply no effort made, in the piece under discussion, or in many, MANY others to discuss/investigate the other side of the coin.
Instead, they all seem to spew up the same boilerplate crap: point to communism, folderol about not being able to ‘absolutely prove or disprove the existence of’, & a pile of other fallacies & common misperceptions. ?
Perhaps. Or perhaps we should take note that they?re ALSO categorized under ?Opposite the -EDitorial? page where OPINIONS and VIEWPOINTS are expressed. It is in the categorizing that we see this is OPINION ? an EDITORIAL. So, if you think the opinion is silly and comes to erroneous conclusions, then challenge the IDEAS presented. Or, alternately, IGNORE the opinion. But at least acknowledge it for what it is ? it?s not being offered as news. If people can not differentiate between the two, then that is their problem.
… Now if I can just learn how to do those fancy block quotes, this might be easier…
Ignorance did not invade USA Today. It runs USA Today. Many of us are old enough to remember when News sources reported news. While we were all sleeping the game changed. News is a very loose term these days. The meaning of the word is not the same it once was. Moon landing deniers are given equal voice as if their claims were equal. The bible is taught as real history on the History channel. We lost a major component of our democracy, and most still don’t know it has gone the way of the DoDo bird.
A world where money means more than truth is dangerous, without the critical thinking skills people can lose all grip on reality. Sad but true.
interesting:
You say that if you were part of a minority that kept getting falsely accused of things it has no involvement in, that you would discuss it calmly and rationally.
First off, you can’t know because you have no idea how it feels for us.
Second, I doubt that you could be calm, because we (atheists, agnostics, etc.) have been pushed around to the point that we have our backs against the wall, and the only option at this point is to come out swinging.
The reason for this backlash is because of believers, much like yourself. We have been constantly lied about- mostly by men of the cloth. Then, believers who refuse to think for themselves and do a little research, compound these lies, and it spreads.
Give me one good shred of evidence of atheists acting immoral, as a whole group or standard. You can’t, because we are some of the most caring people in the world.
Why?
Because we know in our hearts that this is the only shot we get on this planet (or anything else), and we cherish it and the people around us. We don’t do good things for people just to get heaven brownie points. We do good things for people because we love how it makes them feel, and it’s the right thing to do.
Continuing to spread lies is immoral, and the wrong thing to do.
Why?
Because it HURTS people.