Neither Science Nor Technology Can Resolve Our Issues

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Thanks for sharing

"a form of atheism without intellectual support has taken refugee in the old
Greek mantra: 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die.'"

Who on Earth is he talking about? I don't know ANY atheists who think like that!

Hi.
As I quoted elsewhere "We all need to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer." Joking aside, we all have lots of beliefs about the world. Some of them fall in the "religious" or "god related faith" categories but perhaps most of our beliefs (that my pen will fall to the floor when I drop it, that my spouse is faithful to me, that my kids aren't doing drugs, ...) have very little if anything to do with the supernatural. Without faith in our car, we don't drive it. So faith is fundamental to all of us in some sense.

With regard to god, one cannot technically prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Nor can we strictly speaking disprove any other god with the precision of mathematics. (Which leaves the Christian who does not believe in Zeus in a tough spot. He can’t “prove” Zeus doesn’t exist either.) However, typically in science when one finds enough supporting evidence one says that a theory is proved, although not in the final sense of mathematics. For example so much evidence supports the Theory of Relativity, and it is taken as "proved" in some sense within the physics community because it has withstood thousands of tests. However it is still possible for someone or some event to come along that shows something inconsistent with the current Theory of Relativity and it would have to be re-worked or replaced.

While people of a scientific bent may not be able to disprove god, they may be able to show that the existence of a god is so unlikely that it would take a special event to prove existence.

However, in the end, it isn't the atheist’s job to disprove god, scientifically or in any other way, it is the proponent of a god to give logical and reasonable objective evidence that his or her claims are "true".

i still havent found an atheist who will tell me what they believe in though- i think there are as many beliefs as there are atheists-

it doesnt matter to me thats their business- b i always hear the say they believe in something- but never elaborate on what that something might be...

so thats not asking for proof of a negative but a postive-- any takers?

A Critique of Sully

Sully, you rock.

You may be too frank for some tender souls, but you are cogent, incisive, extremely rational, and have a lively sense of humor.

If the Washington Post is going to have a public forum, believers like Stefan need to realize that this is a conversation that indeed allows all points of view, and it is a forum where irrational or un thought out statements are going to be frankly identified as such.

---Our friend Sully writes: How is an atheist going to argue with someone who calls belief "truth?" Yes, but we do exactly the same thing. Most of our assertions are beliefs as well, but we find all kinds of ways not to acknowledge that. It is one thing to say that the earth revolves around the sun (fact), and another to say that God does't exist (sorry folks, that is a belief). Just because God doesn't perform tricks for us, or doesn't allow us to bottle up divinity in a test tube, or doesn't run the universe in a manner we consider fair, doesn't constitute evidence that he doesn't exist. Atheists and secular humanists have to stop fooling themselves that most of their beliefs are "scientific" and thus are superior to those of other people - and we have to stop lecturing people on the differerence between facts and beliefs until we learn it ourselves.---

Stefan asks that athiests prove God does not exist. He says that not accepting God's existence is a "belief". He also states the typical believer's claim, that science can't prove that God does not exist.

Stephan, you misunderstand athiests and what "belief" is. Athiests do not "not believe" in God anymore than you do not "not believe" in Vishnu or Zeus. I could ask you to provide evidence for other gods not existing but I really doubt you "believe" they do not exist. You see, belief doesn't have a negative. You believe or you don't, but not believing is not the act of believing something does not exist. (Hope that wasn't too confusing)

And athiests HAVE beliefs that are not scientific. I believe you should not step on an ant or go out of their way kill any living thing for fun or hate. I was surprised to find out in high school this is a Hindu belief. I didn't care who says they came up with it first, its a belief I hold dear. I have no scientific principle to support it. Its a belief that I created myself based on some logic and watching other kids go out of their way to kill small animals for fun. I also don't need a God and the fires of hell to hold me to this belief. You insinuation that athiests have their heads stuck purely in scientific fact is as insulting as someone saying believers have their heads stuck purely in the clouds. And asking athiests to prove a negative is just silly.

Here's what believers and non-believers do alike. We fasten on the most extreme statements of our opponents - which are almost always absurd - prove that they are idiotic - which they nearly always are - and then take that as some sort of proof that our own ideas are correct.

So our friend Vince presents an elaborate analysis of the inaccuracies in the Bible concerning the physical world as if that proves God had nothing to do with writing it. Why? The assumption seems to be that if he did, God would have undoubtedly told the ancient peoples who wrote these texts about modern astronomy and geology!

Our friend Sully writes: How is an atheist going to argue with someone who calls belief "truth?" Yes, but we do exactly the same thing. Most of our assertions are beliefs as well, but we find all kinds of ways not to acknowledge that. It is one thing to say that the earth revolves around the sun (fact), and another to say that God does't exist (sorry folks, that is a belief). Just because God doesn't perform tricks for us, or doesn't allow us to bottle up divinity in a test tube, or doesn't run the universe in a manner we consider fair, doesn't constitute evidence that he doesn't exist. Atheists and secular humanists have to stop fooling themselves that most of their beliefs are "scientific" and thus are superior to those of other people - and we have to stop lecturing people on the differerence between facts and beliefs until we learn it ourselves.

crass materialism and the peridocal table of elements.
human beings are mineral elements of this earth ,some are gold ,diamond,iron,copper,tin,etc,they all are good ,simply they are the content and element of this earth,for the element to be refined,refinery take place at the school of divine revelation of the allmerceyfull creator lord who created the whole earth.the school is open around the clock until the last day,to gain access and mesh in the school,human beings need to humbel their heart as well as their mind to the allknowing creator lord,other wise is the state of crass materialism of the earth,rust and corrosion.heart and mind is treasure to be wasted.

Hi Victoria-You're right, he's Muslim, and maybe he's okay with atheism as long as it has an intellectual basis. We won't know for sure, because these panelists don't respond to our comments, as has been noted by others above.

TIMMY you keep posting that question i asked as if it were inherently somehow accusatory or implicitly judgemental or just soemhow the question doesnt deserve to exist-

what is it you are imagining people surmise when they read it other than what it is?
a simple postulation

clearly there is something you are seeing there that i didnt intend-(or in reality isnt there)

also as to the crass materialism-
HE SAID A FORM OF ATHEISM WITHOUT INTELLECTUAL SUPPORT-

also hes a muslim not a christian so the analysis of christianity's shortcomings really isnt applicable

Forget your accusations of smugness. I present the following for your careful evaluation as to their superstitious appearance. If, after reviewing these ideas, you conclude that those of us choose to relegate them to the erroneous concepts of a non-scientific belief system, you are welcome to your own decision. I do not begrudge anyone else their faith; I respect it, but I do not subscribe to it.

Those who wrote the Bible believed the Earth to be flat (layered universe)--firmament above and below the Earth--and the "heavens" to be a vault with (relatively small) lights that are the stars and planets, they also believed it was the SUN that moved. They had no concept of the Earth turning on an axis, since they didn't think of it as spherical. There's even a reference to the SUN stopping in its journey across the sky. [Do you have ANY concept of what nature would do in that case? ... the SAME NATURE that "God created?"] Is this the Bible you read? It's the one I have read and studied.

This was how the universe appeared to the ancient Israelites who authored the Bible and to most everyone else in ancient times. The earth appeared to be flat and circular sitting on pillars with a rotating solid sky dome overhead which carried the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars and allowed water to leak through "windows of heaven" or sluice gates to form clouds and rain. God was imagined to live on top of the dome and walk on it.

The Hebrew word "shamayim" is translated as both sky and heaven. To the ancient Hebrews they meant exactly the same thing. God lived in and on the sky dome with the Sun, the Moon, and the rest of the "host of heaven"(the stars).

The Bible’s flat earth:

In the Bible the earth is a round flat object (with ends) and which is immovable and set on pillars.

Here God is imagined to draw a circle on the face of the waters to make the earth:

(Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, etc.

A circle is of course a flat round object. Some would say that the ancient Hebrews had no word for sphere so they used circle, but that is not true. There is a Hebrew word for ball used in the bible. A flat round earth was intuitive to these primitive people. If you picture yourself in their place, it would not be too hard to imagine the earth as being round and flat as you turn around to trace the outline of the horizon where the sky seems to meet the earth.

Here God is imagined to sit above the circle of the earth looking down on it’s inhabitants who are small like grasshoppers:

(Isa 40:22 NRSV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in--

Again a circle is a flat two dimensional object and there was a Hebrew word for ball which would have been more appropriate if the author would have been aware of the earth’s spherical nature.

Here the author of Daniel writes of a dream of Nebuchadnezzar where a tree grows at the "center" of the earth. Assuming that the tree grew on the surface, this is most certainly the center of a flat earth as a spherical earth would have no center on it’s surface. Also notice that the tree grew so tall it’s top reached heaven and was visible to the "ends of the earth". So these verses indicate that Nebuchadnezzar and the author of Daniel pictured a flat earth as everyone else did in their time:

(Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

Here it is possible that this gospel author still imagined a flat earth as Jesus is able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. This would not be possible on a spherical earth:

(Mat 4:8 NRSV) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor--

Here the author of Job imagines that God could take the edges of the earth and shake the wicked out of it:

(Job 38:13 NIV) that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Here the author of Job is saying something is longer than the earth. A flat earth with ends could be compared for length, but longer has no meaning for a spherical earth:

(Job 11:9 NRSV) Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

One end of a flat earth to the other end of a flat earth is mentioned here (a spherical earth had and has no ends):

(Deu 13:7 NRSV) any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

Again, some would say that the ends of the earth is not to be taken literally and that would be true today, but the phrase is leftover from when people used to really believe the earth had ends, which was the case for the ancient Hebrews and most everyone else at that time.

Here are a few more verses that mention the ends of the earth:

Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8

The Bible’s immovable earth set on pillars; yet
here the earth is imagined to be set on pillars and immovable. Immovable?

(Psa 93:1 NRSV) … He has established the world; it shall never be moved;

(1 Sam 2:8 NRSV) For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

(Isa 24:18 NRSV) or the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

The Bible’s solid sky dome:

Here God is imagined to create a solid sky dome that separates the waters into two parts.
One would become the oceans and the other would remain above the solid sky dome to provide an explanation of where water came from to cause clouds and rain in the absence of the knowledge of evaporation:

(Gen 1:6-7 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. "And it was so."

Here is another verse which mentions the water above the sky dome.

(Psa 148:4 NRSV) Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Here celestial bodies are attached to this sky dome:

(Gen 1:14-17 NRSV) And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, --

Notice that the lights, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars are set inside the sky dome.

Here it is mentioned that the sky dome is hard:

(Job 37:18 NRSV) Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

(Prov 8:28 NRSV) when he made firm the skies above, …

God is imagined to walk on top of the sky dome:

(Job 22:14 NRSV) Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

The sky is imagined as something that has to open to let things pass through it:

Here notice that heaven has to be "opened" for things to pass through, things in and above heaven to be seen, and for rainwater to come through. One would think that would not be necessary unless the sky was imagined to be solid. Some would say that this was not be taken literally, but the sky was imagined to be solid in most cultures for over 1500 years after the last books of the bible were written.

(John 1:51 NRSV) And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

(Acts 10:11 NRSV) He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.

(Acts 7:56 NRSV) "Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

(Mat 3:16-17 NRSV) And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

(2 Chr 6:26 NRSV) "When heaven (same Hebrew word as sky) is shut up and there is no rain because…

(Psa 78:23 NRSV) Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Hebrew word as sky)

(Mal 3:10 NRSV) Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. (talking about rain for crops)

(Rev 11:6 NRSV) They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying--

(Gen 7:11-12 NRSV) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Joshua commands the Sun to stand still in the sky

Here Joshua was imagined to have commanded the Sun and the Moon to stand still over particular geographic locations like a helicopter could be imagined to hover over a particular mountain or valley as if the Sun and the Moon were only a few miles high instead of 93 million (Sun) and 1/4 million (Moon) miles away. To the author the Sun and the Moon were attached to a rotating solid sky dome, just a few miles above his head.

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

Jesus probably saw the universe the same way everyone else did in his day:

Here it is indicated that Jesus himself pictured the stars as objects that could fall to the earth which would seem reasonable if he pictured the stars as little lights attached to a solid sky dome just a few miles up like everyone else in his day.

Instead, stars are objects typically millions of times larger than the earth and unimaginably distant.

(Mark 13:24-25 NRSV) "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

It's just that at SOME point, there are those of us who don't buy it.(Call it smugness if you wish, I call it "analysis".) If you do, ok.

Stefan wrote:
---I'm a fence-sitter on the big issue here, but do you atheists out there realize how smug and intellectually arrogant most of you sound? I don't say this to anger you, just to make you think about how you sound to a neutral. Now don't come back at me by saying that religious people are intolerant and arrogant too. This isn't about them - it's about you.---

Well I consider my self an athiest but was brought up a god fearing catholic. I agree some athiests sound smug but you need to understand that discussing this topic with people who believe in things they call "truth" and "reality" can be frustrating. For example, from MO above:

"understanding the reality and origin of man kind and understanding the reality of the creator lord is the first grade of learning .the truth has been manifested and distinguished long time ago.it start at the heart,not at the scientific and logical lab."

How is an athiest going to argue with someone who calls belief "truth" or says things like "the reality of the creator lord" which is a reality based solely on belief? But I do agree this type of discussion needs to be kept on a civil level. I usually start by trying to separate the words "truth" and "reality" from "belief". When opposite sides of this discussion can agree on those terms, only then can a real discussion begin. So lets start the definitions. Here's mine:

Truth: An observation of a repeatable reality backed up by evidence. It is true 2+2=4. It is true that Jesus Christ existed based on the abundant evidence. It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old based on the abundant evidence.

Reality: What we experience each day and you can find others who experience and agree upon the same reality. Gravity on earth is a reality. Gravity on the moon is a reality.

Belief: An idea or concept that one may hold to be true but cannot be proved and has little or no evidence. I believe that flying saucers have visited earth. I believe the earth is 6000 years old. I believe in a God. I believe my dog loves me. I believe Christ changed water into wine, raised a dead man to life and rose three days after dying.

Once we separate what is truth and real from what is belief, then maybe we can all speak the same language. As long as people like MO call belief truth and reality, you might as well be talking apples and oranges. It might surprise you to know that athiests have beliefs. I'm an athiest who believes humans are instinctively good people who only learn what we would call "evil". I have little to back it up and openly admit its a gut feeling, a belief. But I don't call it truth or reality evrn though I firmly believe it to be true. I'm also aware I may be wrong because it is a "belief". Many believers do not think this way, instead refering to their belief as truth, thus losing and frustrating us athiests.

I agree with everyone who's saying we need to be respectful, but that only goes so far.
There's nothing in this statement by Dr. Nyang that comes anywhere near respectable.

Some of us have never believed in any gods, Dr.Nyang, and some of us live downright ascetic, productive, and happy exsitences. Crass materialism can be blamed on lots of things, but never can it rightfully be blamed on godlessness.

Stefan, when you say "ultimate source of truth," what is your definition of truth? I've always read the word as a synonym for fact.

I see that as the source of the problem - religious dogma makes claims about the world, makes claims to objective fact. Even if a dogma's claim matches what people can perceive with their senses and can conclude with their brains, the dogma insists that people accept the claim not for that reason but solely "because we said so."

From my perspective, secular humanism and atheism don't claim to be "humanity's final word on the subject." I see these as advocates for the individual's right to make his or her own conclusions about things.

That last post to Warp10 was from me.

Warp10--

Yes, I know. Respect is a two way street. I shouldn't put the onus entirely on atheists. On the other hand, there's nothing in Prof. Nyang's article that merits many of the belligerant replies I've read here. One of my 'favorites' is, "so much idiocy cramped in four short paragraphs."

issues of ignorance
to cure ignorance you need to seek knoweldge ,the source of knoweldge belong to the creator of heavens and earth and whatever between.the creator taught adam and eve ,the name of every thing.divine revelation been sent long time ago ,it has all the knoweldge that concern human kind and other kinds,the news of the seen and the unseen,the news of befor and now and after .knowing your creator is passing the first issue of ignorance.

My only point is where does all this one-upmanship get us? If we call the guy we disagree with an ignoramus and a jerk and use that to justify our own aggression and righteousness, all we demonstrate is that we are still trapped in same the dynamic of conflict that has prevailed throughout human history - where the goal is winning and nothing else.

The dynamic of conflict, not the battle of ideas, is the central problem of human existence and we have find a way to sidestep it or the fighting will go on forever. Some of us seem to have deluded ourselves into thinking that we represent the pinnacle of human evolution - what a laugh! Ideas change. They've changed many times in the past and they will change again in the future. Atheists rip religious believers for being naive, but what could be more naive than to assume that the ideas of modern secular humanism and "scientific" atheism represent humanity's final word on the subject? Come now!

As for science, watch out - it's a method, a wonderful tool, and an attitude, not body of doctrine or a compendium of beliefs, however rational. Perhaps the most common intellectual error of our time is mistaking the scientific method for some ultimate source of truth that will supersede everything that came before it.

Todd writes: "I agree with Victoria that the tone of this discussion is horrible and doesn't reflect well on atheists"

Yes, how dare those atheists be offended after being attacked that they are inherently immoral, or just feel equal or superior to God, or are naturally materialistic -- yeah that's THEIR problem.

Here’s a post Virginia on the 'Is atheism enjoying a vogue thread': "if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.”

I guess when my right wing Christian friends state all Muslims are violent terrorist wanna bes-- then any moderate Muslim who gets angry and offended by this is just proving his belief system really is inferior.

Meaning: Blame the scapegoat. (Carefulbefore rushing to agree: My experience has been Christians reacte angrily when attacked first too.)

Mr Nyang writes:

"The second reason why atheism is gaining visibility lies in the growing powers of crass materialism. Since a vast number of us are captured in the world of materialism and
self-gratification, a form of atheism without intellectual support has taken refugee in the old
Greek mantra: 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die.' This excessive materialism tends to deny any notion of accountability at the end of one's life time."

I interpreted this to refer to the Christians (perhaps I was wrong.)

It would have no impact on why I was an atheist though. I became an atheist solely because I sought the truth -- and everything I read pointed to religions being invented by priests and superstitutious primitive people -- desparate to invent a myth that they would not really die..

I would believe instantly if I saw any proof for it. I do follow Goodness as my Guide (the Random Acts of Kindness genre). I do have strong spiritual feelings of awe, love and beauty (exactly the same as when I was religious -- Except now I think I am more compassionate -- I can't slough off poor people to the care of God.)

I agree with Victoria that the tone of this discussion is horrible and doesn't reflect well on atheists. I don't have a problem with taking the Professor to task but it can be done without gratuitous ad hominem remarks.

One thing I'd like to see Sally and Jon encourage the panelists to do is give some indication that they are reading some of the responses, preferably by writing at least one rejoiner or rebuttal. This would at least show there is genuine dialogue taking place. But I'm afraid it won't happen until the readers keep their replies civil and respectful.

Mr. Nyang,

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to think, like many believers, that athiesm is itself a belief. You will never understand athiests until you understand that athiests believe in no god, even man as god. It reminds me of explaining to my daughter that black is not a color but an absense of any color. "No" she would protest, "black is a color! See, their is a black crayon". You proclaim athiesm to be a belief in no god. Get over it, it is not a belief anymore than you not believing in the tooth fairy is a "belief" in no tooth fairy.

You then identify why athiesm is on the rise, something I don't see so I wonder why you think its on the rise. You reasons:
1) global telecommunication system - If anything this has allowed the religious, especially the christians, to spread their gospel into every home through TV preaching and house thousands in a single service televised worldwide.
2) the growing powers of crass materialism - American is the most crass materialistic society ever known yet almost 80% say they believe in a god, many more than in less consuming societies.
3) growing fruits of human scientific and
technological might - If anything these fruits were evidence against claims by religious leaders. The sun was said to be powered by God. No scientists in the 18th century could explain how it stayed hot for the 6000 years the earth was "known" to have existed. Science solved that riddle, not religion. Since then babies we learned were not devinely created but were the result of DNA from mother and father, just like any other animal. We learned mental issues were not issues of a tortured soul in need of help by God but tortured tissue in need of medical help and therapy.

As science has progressed I've noticed that people who go to church when sick do not survive as long as those who instead go to a hospital. Damn medicine for making the promise of religious miracles not as attractive as medical miracles! But I'll bet you also head to a hospital when injured. Don't blame the strength of mans inventions that have made life better for all, blame the weakness of religious tenants for those who turn away from religion and its system of belief in what cannot be seen. If you think God is real then its up to you to come up with strong reasons for believing it is so. Don't blame your failings on technology and other scapegoats. In the meantime, understand that even athiests listen to the gospel - a good story is a good story whether real or not and we can all learn from their morals. And athiests need to define in themselves what is right and what is wrong just like everyone else, its just that they think it through instead of accepting it without thought due to the fear of everlasting hell.

Stefan, scroll up to Mo's post for an example of why atheists on this blog may appear to have a superiority complex. At least we know where the shift key is.

If Christians would have more intellectual curiosity and integrity, atheists who do have these qualities wouldn't "appear" smug. Pointing out fallacious reasoning, ignorance about other worldviews and contradictions in their worldview may seem smug to you, but what is the alternative? Would it go something like this?

"I respect your right to ignore physical reality and make up a fairy tale to explain it all. Further, I respect your insistance that the rest of us who understand science should throw it all away and follow the one true path that you have chosen, for your smugness is superior to mine."

Mr Nyang writes:

"The second reason why atheism is gaining visibility lies in the growing powers of crass materialism. Since a vast number of us are captured in the world of materialism and
self-gratification, a form of atheism without intellectual support has taken refugee in the old
Greek mantra: 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die.' This excessive materialism tends to deny any notion of accountability at the end of one's life time."

It's amazing that the professor can write such a statement accusing atheists of crass materialism. Why no mention of the "abundant life" version of Xianity, the strain whose current poster boy is Joel Osteen in Houston (he's been all over the mainstream media - CNN, MTP - so he's not exactly a fringe element)? Is he not aware of this popular strain of Xianity in the USA? If not, he should turn on the TV any time of the day to witness the Bible thumpers extolling the idea that Xians aren't meant to suffer on but to get rich and have it all, both here and in the afterlife (though you may need to send the Bible thumper a sizable donation for this to happen). I haven't noticed any atheists on TV running such scams, nor do I know of any mega-churches run by atheists to promote such crass materialism.

As far as the "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die," this is another meme that dominates Xian belief, not that of atheists. Who can forget James Watt, the Sec of the Interior who claimed that we didn't need to worry about protecting the environment because Jesus was returning soon and we were in the end times? That's a claim I've heard from a number of Xians. They also say that man was giving dominion over the Earth, so anything we do to it - no matter how destructive - is just following god's design.

Someone's projecting here.

Okay, I'll generalize the religious in the same sad way this guy has chosen to characterize the godless among us:

People belong to religious groups because :
1. They were told since birth that that's the only way to be good, nice, worthwhile people.
2. They are weak-willed and need to belong.
3. Death is too much to face without delusions.
4. People don't have reliable moral compasses of their own and need religion for guidance.

Did I miss any? Was that mean enough to get me a professorship anywhere?

Tolerance, Arrogance, and Stefan's Post

Thanks Stefan for your perspective.

In both the believing camp and the atheist camp, we have a range of types of people, for instance, from very polite to very frank to very sarcastic to hateful.

Sad but inevitable. And not all sad. These are important questions, important I believe for the survival of our planet and species, so frankness is certainly necessary.

Regarding the column we are discussing here: frankness requires one to observe that the intellectual level of reasoning and scholarship from our Professor is, pardon my French, appalling. I say that sadly but frankly.

Atheists, somewhat like gays and minorities who have been oppressed, get touchy when a member of the Believing Majority (remember the Moral Majority?) tell the atheists what they are like, especially when their grasp of evidence is as tenuous as the columnist here.

Some of us atheists are sweet - Dennett really is a doll by any standards - some are frank and slightly smart ass (Dawkins), and some are avid and incisive at exposing the hypocrasy of lots of believers (Harris).

Dawkins deserves to be arrogant: he IS brilliant and he knows he is. But he also tries to be understanding and human, though the lucidity of his criticisms must hurt an intelligent believer hard.

And yes, some atheists are obnoxiously arrogant, and some believers, as you note, are too.

The Common Basis for Religion and Science

There is one aspect of the religion vs science debate where some headway might be made. As I pointed out in my response to Alan Segal’s article, there seems to be a desire in humans for an absolute understanding of ourselves and our world. This yearning for ultimate truth is not easily satisfied, however, because we realize that we can’t rely on our own reasoning to arrive at unequivocal answers. Any reasoning is based on assumptions that must stand on their own, and if these come from within ourselves or our culture they will, because of human limitations, always carry a degree of uncertainty.

To solve this problem we appeal to an “authority” outside ourselves. Only in this way can we gain knowledge that is independent of human biases and is, therefore, truly believable. To do this we must find ways to supersede humans.

This is done in both religion and science, but in very different ways. Truths in religion are acquired through revelations, which come in various forms. The Bible is a written revelation either directly from God or through a person who is divinely connected. Miracles are direct worldly interventions that are regarded as revelations from beyond the physical world. Information is delivered directly from the deity with little or no human involvement. Because of this it can be regarded as pure truth.

Truths in science also require a kind of “revelation,” independent of human involvement. The basis of scientific knowledge is the objective experiment, which is designed to reveal information about the world that is not biased by the preconceptions of the experimenter. Whether or not this is ultimately achievable, it is the goal. The result is intended to be a pure truth about the physical world.

The answers obtained by religion and science are often incompatible, an unavoidable result of the fundamentally different approaches. And there are difficulties with both methods in practice, as the two sides are adept at pointing out to each other. But the point I am making is that there is a common, underlying human basis from which both religion and science derive. Once it is recognized that both result from the most human of all qualities, our desire to understand, we might be able to move beyond the who’s-right-and-who’s-wrong phase to compare and contrast the two methods as each correct in its own way.

I'm a fence-sitter on the big issue here, but do you atheists out there realize how smug and intellectually arrogant most of you sound? I don't say this to anger you, just to make you think about how you sound to a neutral. Now don't come back at me by saying that religious people are intolerant and arrogant too. This isn't about them - it's about you. Where does all the anger and judgement I see in these posts come from? Don't tell me about how you were raised in some oppressive religious tradition (I and many others were too), or that the excesses of religious zealots are to blame. The anger is inside all of us: believer, atheist, agnostic - and nothing important will change until we stop venting it on each other and try to understand it - not as an academic subject of study - but as a deep personal question: why am I so angry and intolerant? What am I getting out of this? Where does it lead? Is this the way I want to live? This is the beginning of taking some responsibility for who we are and what we do in the world.

Here's my basis for having problems with theism of any kind. As soon as you open your belief system to accepting anything super-natural, what is the difference between a willingness to believe in the Christian god, or the Jewish god (in other words accepting one god) and accepting the reality of "many gods" (pantheism), or the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, or metaphysics or paranormal happenings. In short, entities, forces or phenomena which are not subject to normal natural laws, and therefore totally beyond verifiable measurement no matter what the form remain just that. Though supernatural refers chiefly to the cause of phenomena (an interpretation). But, if a phenomenon can be scientifically demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural. So, by definition, that which is subject to scientific experiment and verification--natural phenomena--PROVABLE, incurs suspicion from theists for the simple reason that it challenges their faith system. And this is very strange--anathema pronounced upon those of us who feel we'd like to protect what is knowable, instead of allowing angels and devils and gods and witches and warlocks and vampires and all other "supernatural" concepts. When you pick and choose your SUPERNATURAL concept, and decry others, that describes disingenuous superstition. Whether you wish to call it that or not theists, in accepting SOMEthing supernatural allows the door to open to all superstition. I'm sure theists would prefer that not be true, and yet it is inescapable.

At the point that science finds that DARK MATTER (or something) is god and shows it to be so, I'll become a theist. But until then, subjective faith is fine for others, not for me.

And as to foisting something upon others and castigating, burning heretics at the stake, the Crusades, etc., certainly have shown there have been enough "INSULTS" to go around ... indeed, the religious theists have "sinned" and do "sin" against their own belief. Hypocrisy, I think it's called

"Convinced by the 'godly' powers of Man, many of us have come to embrace the deification of Man as the alternative to the transcendence of the invisible God."

If I read Nyang's sentence correctly, one either has to deify God or deify humankind, as if there were no other alternatives. I disagree. Why do so many of atheism's opponents treat the subject as a zero-sum game?

Sounds like athieism is also a religion with its pompous intolerant extremists as well.

I don't like the insults either. I think they are counter-productive. It is much better to point out inconsistencies and untruths but leave the insults out.

I can understand their frustration, because everyone seems to want to misrepresent us, and many of the statements made are not true. It gets very frustrating when people keep propagating lies about atheists.

I tend to get a little snarky when people defend religious ideas that serve no purpose except to hurt people e.g. Muslim/gay/atheist bashing by Christians etc.

Chill dudes!

Victoria, relax!! Its not the atheists who are out to do harm in the world today. You don't find atheist punishing believers like you, but you sure do find a lot of believers killing themselves and others, punishing those who are unbelievers, or even those who believe slightly different from themselves. Atheists are generally too busy just living their lives to care about other peoples silly beliefs.
So, you go right on believing those comforting, illogical things you believe, Victoria, and we atheists will continue not caring.

You're right, and I shouldn't stoop to name calling either.

I'm sorry if I offended any of you hostile anti-theists...

well i dont like to call names but there certainly is a great deal of hostility expressed

i guess you and i are finding a common ground hee

Victoria, I am an agnostic and have no use for organized religion, but I agree with you 100% I was hoping to find some intelligent and interesting ideas exchanged here but these anti-theist types are some real a-holes, no?

I AM STARTING TO LOSE THE RESPECT FOR ATHEISTS THAT I HAD WHEN I CAME INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS

OUT OF A TOTAL OF 33 RESPONSES-32 were negative and downright vicious-

i have not gone on one single atheist website and insulted one poster let alone the panelist-

why would someone come and read this opinion if theyre an atheist- to tear it apart no matter what?

i had a prejudice FOR the reasonableness athesits before-

i cannot see reason at work here- only a great desire to be "right" at the expense of human cicility and manners-

i am getting a bad education about atheists as they define themselves as intolerant and controlling and without any ability to be fair-

you are not the thought police
i am getting afraid of atheists more and more

the creation of adam and eve.
adam was a piece of mud in the hand of the creator lord,the creator lord breathed soul in him ,gave him eyes ,ears ,mind and heart,.so human kind were realy none until created by the creator lord,.yet man take it uppon himself and disbelive in the existance of his originator and initiator.absolute proof belong to the creator lord ,simply because not only he is the creator but no creator save him.he challegeing man kind and any kind to creat a trifeling thing as little as a mosquito.so far since the creation of adam and eve ,no body ,none succeded in beating the challenge.he guide what he created,no vice ,no subcontractor,none but him.yet man take it uppon himself and come with his ideas wich is always satanic if it is not in conformity with the guidance of the creator .understanding the reality and origin of man kind and understanding the reality of the creator lord is the first grade of learning .the truth has been manifested and distinguished long time ago.it start at the heart,not at the scientific and logical lab.

You are right that science & technology don't have all the answers, but thousands of years of religion have also produced NO answers although Bible says slavery is OK and taking Virgins after killing men in war is okay and many eople have been killed inm the name of one religion or another.
Your premise only shows that people of faith can spread manure and have it thought of as Godly and that is what it is faith - no foundation which can be proved unlike science which can be tested and can be found wrong.

Mr Mark: "Is the WP on a crusade to allow the theists to bury themselves in their own illogical rants?"

Appears you are the one doing this for them.

Projecting now are we?

(Let me predict -- I grossly insulted you by applying your own words--and appropriately so--to yourself. )

Mr Nyang,

(I thought I was going to like you by the first two responses -- then I got to number three.)

It's very simple why atheists don't believe...

It's because we researched the ancient writings -- and it looks like a bunch of superstition written by primitive peoples who believed the earth was the center of the universe and that mental illness was caused by demons.

Look around -- and the most devout are the most gullible of all -- and following con men:

-- take the obvious crooked televangelists who are getting rich off their flock (the latter never seeming to mind the mansions and lack of money to the poor.)

-- take Bush being a "good Christian" and talking to God about finding WMD. Gee -- who was he talking to if he didn't find them. If you are religions, shouldn't you try to connect the dots?

-- and all those Holy Rollers who never had a clue that Ted Haggard, head of the Evangelist Churches was a doper and a gay. (And a gay prostitute had to tell them this...)

I do say the Bible has some good verses in it: My favorite is: "Ye shall know them by their works."

But this seems to be a verse the devout pay little attention to?

Why is that? Not enough faith? Close those eyes tighter, right???

No thanks. I like the truth too much.

Wow! The anti-atheist screeds on this board get more ridiculous and less logical with each new entry. Seriously, what is the point of having theists display such abject ignorance? Is the WP on a crusade to allow the theists to bury themselves in their own illogical rants? If so, they are succeeding beyond all imagining.

There's no reason to respond to specifics in the article. Others have already done so...and handily.

I did notice that there are few if any bloggers jumping in to defend the writer. Maybe that's progress.

Mr Nyan, I'm very disappointed in your reply. I'd expect a professor to do better than to set up a straw man then knock it down with a tu quoque attack.

Then, to make matters worse, you accuse us of being materialistic and then describe hedonism, not materialism.

The truth is, you can't generalize about atheists because we're defined by a negative: we don't believe in a deity. Most of us don't believe in *any* supernatural entity. The most you could accuse us of is naturalism, since the scientific method has helped humanity understand processes of nature that used to be described by religion.

As for invoking communism, you religionists really need to stop that. I think we need a Godwin's law for communism. Why on earth would a moribund movement have anything to do with atheism's ascendancey in the U.S.? I personally disagree with totalitarian regimes motivated by any theory -- monarchies, military regimes, theocracies, Nazism, and yes, Communism

The last straw man you knock down is deification of man. Of course there will always be schizophrenics who believe they are god, but other than that, atheists aren't deifying mankind at all. A deity is supernatural, and the technology and science you think has deified man has done nothing of the sort. Even "humanists" can't be accused of self-deification.

I can understand that when one is steeped in one's religion and rarely talks to anyone outside of their belief system that person would project the structure of their own thinking onto others. But a professor shouldn't be that ignorant. Shame on you.

E Favorite

I hope the panelists read the comments. I know many people put considerable thought into them. However, the tenor of many of several of the panelist's essays suggests a profound lack of curiosity or intellectual openness. My guess is that the people who might most benefit from the comments are least likely to read them.

I have to add my voices to those who ask what is the point of this On Faith series? Is it not time to put it to rest? Some of the panelists are incoherent, or to put it more charitably, display an appalling ignorance about what atheists believe. Many are insulting, or at the very least, condescending. At least one of the academicians has written something that would put his job in jeopardy if he had substituted the words "Jew" or "Black" or "Mexican" for "atheist". (At the very least, he would be severely censured at the university where I teach). I have also noted only two scientists on the panel, as opposed to a very much larger number of theologians, religious figures, and academicians in the humanities. I might have missed it, but not a single Budhist.

(Why can I not help thinking that if Quinn and Meacham respond to this last critique, it will be by asking Francis Collins to add his two cents?)

I for one have had enough.

Last post to Ashley is from E. Favorite

Ashley, you are great. I love your posts.

I too would like to know from Quinn and Meacham what they see as the point of the forum.

I'd also like to hear what they think of their creation so far.

I disagree with you about one thing, though. I don't think this forum has failed. I think it's been a huge success.

Perhaps it hasn't met its ultimate promise, but it's been great to hear from the "experts" and even better to hear the responses.

It's a start to a much needed conversation.

The next thing I'd like to see here is panelists’ impressions of the responses. A real punch in the stomach, for some, I’m sure.

James wrote: "I can only surmise that because is a professor (shudder at the thought) of Arabic studies there is a broadening the discussion motive, and the editors do not screen the submissions."

You don't have to surmise anything, James. His bio. at the top tells you what his specialty is. And it's not Arabic or Islamic Studies.

PROF NYANG: This excessive materialism tends to deny any notion of accountability at the end of one's life time.

Well, Muhuammed Atta thought he'd get accountability at the end of this life -- 72 vigins worth.

When secular individuals loos at the world today, we see tremendous achievement in science through cooperation of very different nations. And pointless violence brought about by different understandings of God.

As a Muslim, do you really think your faith is doing right in reducing violence, respecting the status of women and improving the world's living conditions in areas where it dominates?

Mr. Nyang makes some sense. But perhaps there's more direct, less "esoteric" approach to the question. First, the question:

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

Here's my response:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

We are better educated.

Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right agenda, which has created an umitigated global distaster and even meanaces the Constitution.

We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

Important thinkers, who oppose irrationalism in the public sector, are publishing and speaking more openly to the issue.

Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the "believer," regardless of the belief.

No, there cannot be a productive conversation between people who insist on irrational beliefs, as opposed to reason, and those who don't. That is why we have the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you.

The last post was mine.

Professor Nyang writes: "This is the mirror opposite for those of us who invest heavily in a Divine Being who is both Personal and Eternal."

Of course, we all know a believer could NEVER be materialistic, and could NEVER be overconfident in their beliefs. For example, a True Believer would NEVER subscribe to a religion that called on believers to "kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers". Koran 2:190-191 Lest the Professor chide me for my selective quoting, there are something along the lines of 163 other verses of this nature in the Koran that we see being put into effect e.g. in Somalia and Chad even as we speak. By believers.

Actually my disbelief in this kind of personalized jealous god has nothing to do with materialism (other than perhaps the fact that I value human life regardless of the religion of the person in question).

The Professor is right about one thing, though. This fundamentally incommensurate view of the world is not going to be resolved. There are too many people now who cannot accommodate this type of early medieval world view.

Ashley:
Publishers look for things to publish. It makes sense this blog is about that since it's sponsored by publishers.

It's not altogether clear there isn't another agenda but exactly what it is if any is their secret. The topic began as faiths getting together and finding common ground to settle their differences, one world, one faith something. To that one can smile, shrug and throw in a sarcastic comment here and there. That may have prompted this atheists bash of recent days, bashing back. Their team doesn't seem to be winning seemingly more interested in making peace with a non existent entity. There's no atheist faith is there?

Re: Ashley's challenge to Sally

Ashley, I truly sympathize with your position.

I can not imagine why this columnist was included. I can only surmise that because is a professor (shudder at the thought) of Arabic studies there is a broadening the discussion motive, and the editors do not screen the submissions.

There are some "name" believers here - like Karen Armstrong who just posted.

Such "moderates" (ie semi reasonable folks) are better in some ways than this fellow.

But the moderates, Sally Included, take such a namby pamby position that they do not add much to the question, which is, I think, is there any good reason to believe in the Supernatural elements of religion, starting with"God created the world."

The useful part for me of this site is to realize that neither the moderates nor the wackos have been able to begin to mount a credible argument for why we should believe, other than blind faith.

Sally seems to think that "God" is equal to "having nice thoughts." Nice thoughts ARE nice, but why call them "God." God has a fairly clear supernatural meaning that has been developed over 3,000 years of monotheistic history. It makes no sense to say, "well when I said God, I meant this House Plant over here."

At this point, I would really like to hear from Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham concerning what the actual point of "On Faith" is. What I see is panelist after panelist producing shrill, poorly reasoned, anti-atheistic screeds. Do you think including a few token atheists like Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins compensates for the hatred and ignorance of most of your other panelists?

Maybe finding a group of really excellent thinkers is an impossible task when you are drawing from a group of people whose primary occupations are religious in nature. But surely you can do better than this panelist, with his tired prejudices of atheists as communists, hedonists, and arrogant know-it-alls. Who is more arrogant, Mr. Nyang, the theist who claims that her gods are the answer to every question, or the atheist he admits that there are many questions for which we do not yet have the answers?

If On Faith is trying to produce a dialog, it has failed. The discussions you are presumably trying to foster will never be any better than the quality of the panelists who initiate them. Aside from a couple of atheists and one or two semi-reasonable theists, the offerings thus far are little more than "Repent your hedonistic ways, godless life-hating heathen!!!". All you can expect in response are angry retorts from a group of people who've heard this bigotry time and time again.

He left out the number one reason why there are so many new folks willing to say they don't believe. That goes for at least 42 million Americans as I understand the stats. There's a little old archaeological find or perhaps better said a rereading of some old papers, maybe some new ones too the old ones being enough, that proves the Bible is a hoax. That has caused many so far and predictably many more to reexamine just what they faith when they faith whatever it is they faith.

Faith findings:
1. Faith is in the Bible is God's word. Proved not so.
2. Faith is in men preaching from Bibles, caliming to represent God. Claim proved no so.
3. Faith finally gets to God. Is God so?

We need a new source of God. Putting words in God's mouth is not advised and especially when those words mean war.

All relgions worship Devil, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul proves that. Prooof the Bible is bogus is done to the standard for proving literary hoaxes on a different page in that book.

It's a shame atheists aren't organized better. They could charge an entry fee to get into their club.

No Kidding, TUKKA... so are you saying the IRAQI CRUSADE wasn't worth it? ... My god, man, those people over there are mooslims. Where's your sense of right and wrong? ... Here, let's all sing a seasonal song:
SLAY-bells ring! Are ya list'nin'?
Parents cry, eyes are glist'nin'.
Iraq is a fight that's really not right:
Dying in George Bush's blunderland.

Gone away is the true word,
In its place is the "screw" word.
We sing a sad song: "This war's gone too long!"
Dying in George Bush's blunderland.

CHORUS:
With impeachment we can bring indictment:
He deserves it for his crimes and lies.
At long last we'll feel some real excitement--
and maybe we'll recover some allies.

When they write Bush's bio,
He'll be quoted, "Yippee-tie-yo!
We knocked off Hussein, why do you complain?"
Dying in George Bush's blunderland.

CHORUS.

Corp'rate friends make a "killin"
killin' poor people's chil''en--
"It's worth the attack on oil-rich Iraq!"
Dying in George Bush's blunderland.

Professor Nyang, others have already criticized your irrational assertions regarding some of the motivations that some have for atheism and I would like to add my general agreement with what has already been said in the preceding comments.

I also want that I believe the problem with religious thinking is that it inadequate and ineffective means of addressing the problems that technology CREATES. It is reckless and dangerous to apply old world ideas to new world realities.

Science and technology have allowed humanity to place itself in the greatest peril. Science and technology has also allowed us to improve the human condition in ways that otherwise would have been impossible.

What is needed are leaders and populations who are scientifically literate, rational thinkers who are willing and able to understand the implications and potential applications of science and technology. What has been religion's track record thus far in cultivating these desirable (some would say crucial) attributes?

I would say that religion has been a counterproductive influence in this regard, to say the least.

Well, from what I can tell so far on this site is:

ALL YOU WANT IS TO HAVE PRAGMATIC PEOPLE WHO DON'T GO FOR THAT "FAITH-BASED" VIRGIN-BIRTHED religion known as Christianity to come on line to give you some of those "THEY"S to bounce off of so you can further validate your obviously UNSHAKABLE and UNCHALLENGABLE "faith" - based on (?) FAITH.

I have yet to see a BALANCED Christian argument FOR putting your life on the line for some very, very long-past story of an everyman who was killed cause he dared to open his mouth to the religious establishment of his time (supported by the occupier of the area - uh- is this sounding FAMILIAR?) and his followers decided to make a career of lamenting his death cause they were too weak to be real men and keep him from harm.

Sounds like a big case of collective guilt to me.

And a case of collective EGO-STROKING validation.

Men.

This piece is too silly to deserve extended deconstruction.

Well, of course athiests NEED to buy into a MALE GOD, as well as all of the inconsistencies and out-right contradictions (not to forget the concepts of a "layered" world with firmament above a DOMED sky where all of the "lights of the sky" are hung and a world that has four corners. Athiests need to accept that Jesus didn't do anything "remarkable" except grow older from the time he was 12 till he was 30 years old, and that he wasn't attracted to females or (Zeus forbid) that, conversely, since he basically spent all his time with 12 males, that he wasn't gay. Moreover, athiests SIMPLY MUST disregard the fact that no reliable biographical of history of Jesus and all his miracles was written by any of the thousands (multitudes of people) DURING HIS LIFETIME. Oh, well, I guess Athiests are just stupid.

Erik

I presume you like I have some regret at having to speak so frankly. But I feel your rhetoric is necessary in this case.

I had to read this twice to make sure it was as unbelievably, laughingly/cryingly uninformed and illogical as it is.

I suspected then that Steven Colbert had written it as a parody.

my goodness.
so much idiocy cramped in four short paragraphs.
I see this 'scholar' is as 'educated' as his fundamentalist christian counterparts.
No discussion will ever be possible with clowns like this.

erik de koster
brussels, belgium

People who are serious enough and thoughtful enough to declare themselves to be atheists are usually less invested in the material world than the general run of believers.

Think of plump clerics vs. thin, ascetic physics-professor atheists.

Also megachurch pastors and their material accouterment.

What makes this even more depressing is that

This Columnist is a Professor!!!

He actually teaches the young. At a college.

What kind of approach to learning must his students be getting from his example.

What about
investigating evidence with discernment.
understanding appropriately other points of view.
having a sense of what causes what and how things are related.
just to start.

oh my gosh. Scary.

This whole site has been a bit of an eye opener for me. Some of the people who make these ridiculous statements about atheists are associated with some prestigious institutions. If these people who are so informed about so many things can still be so misguided and ignorant about atheism then imagine what the common religious must think.

A very depressing prospect to say the least.

Professor Nyang,

I find your answers shallow and just plain wrong.

I do not believe in a vengeful deity, who is a giant surveillance camera in the sky and who has wire-tapped my brain, for the same reason I don't believe that Pink Unicorns are orbiting Mars: it's a ridiculous fairy-tale!

My non-belief in a personal deity has nothing to do with science, technology, global communications, crass materialism, the "deification" of man, or a so-called crisis of self-confidence. LOL!

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own biased beliefs into the beliefs of Atheists.

You admit to being heavily invested in a personal savior--is it possible for you to have a reasonable discussion on this topic without your heavily invested ego taking over in place of reason?

So Much Wrong Here, Hard to Know Where to Start

It is hard for me to find one sentence in Mr Nyang's column that is supported by the facts, evidence, or logic.

My atheism has NOTHING to do with Crass Materialism, kind of a quaint expression by the way. What makes you, Mr. Nyang, think you are more elevated spiritually than the atheists on this post, or Dawkins, Dennett or Davis? There is no evidence for that conclusion in the many studies that have been done on this subject.

The statement that people have "come to accept atheism as an intellectual and social phenomenon that serves their quest for meaning in life" is an astounding one. Virtually every intelligent writer on spiritual issues believes that atheism makes the quest for meaning more difficult, though based on more realistic premises.

Religion has don a very bad job of "resolving issues for all of us." Highly religious countries show markedly higher rates of social pathology than do highly non-believing ones.

I certainly agree with your first point here, but your second and third paragraphs are just more of the same ignorant slander we atheists have to put up with; ie that we are crass, arrogant materialists who put our selfish desires first and think we have all the answers.

But for me and for many, if not most, of the atheists I have met this description does not fit at all. It is a concern for our fellow human beings and a desire to find effective, real world solutions to the problems facing so many of our brothers and sisters that motivates us to speak out against destructive, divisive religious dogmas and to plead for open, honest, compassionate and respectful dialogue.

Yet another in ever-so-common line of denunciations of atheism. Riddled with illogical associations andn the conclusions drawn from them.

"The second reason why atheism is gaining visibility lies in the growing powers of crass materialism. Since a vast number of us are captured in the world of materialism and
self-gratification, a form of atheism without intellectual support has taken refugee in the old
Greek mantra: 'Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die.' This excessive materialism tends to deny any notion of accountability at the end of one's life time."

Daniel Dennett's pronouncement in "Breaking the Spell was never more needed than now to refute this inane platitude. He claims that the only good that can be said of religion is that it in some cases inspires people to live lives of equivalent morality and civility commonly found in Brights (atheists). I owuld love for the dear professor Sulyaman to cite just one study which links "crass materialism" to atheism. Read the opening passages of any Dawkins book and it will dispell any notion that his materialism is "crass."