Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Should public schools allow religious groups to hand out faith texts to students?
Posts
Followers
Handbook links
I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
--Epicurus
In a child's power to master the multiplication table, there is more sanctity than in all your shouted "amens" and "holy holies" and "hosannas." An idea is a greater monument than a cathedral. And the advance of man's knowledge is a greater miracle than all the sticks turned to snakes or the parting of the waters.
-Inherit the Wind
Titus Lucretius Carus
tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
The Handbook reading list.
- American Fascists, by Chris Hedges
- Bertrand Russel on God and Religion, edited by Al Seckel
- Cosmos, by Carl Sagan
- God is not Great, by Christopher Hitchens
- Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalsim, by Michelle Goldberg
- Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris
- On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
- Scientific Method, by Barry Gower
- The Bible and the Koran
- The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins
- The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
- The End of Faith, by Sam Harris
- The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
About Me
Ignorance more frequently begats confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-Charles Darwin
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell, Is there a God?
"The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition." - Richard Dawkins
I suggest that we might want to depose this incumbent God and start dealing with The Real World. He's proven — time and again — to be cruel, capricious, and vindictive. He drowns, crushes, burns, and starves millions of us every day. He created cancer, viruses, and germs to invade and destroy our bodies as He sees fit, and uses them very effectively. In His wisdom, He directed those in charge to impede stem cell research so that such a powerful approach would not be available to us and He wouldn't have to strain the Divine Intellect to disarm that defense. We amuse Him as we flail about vainly trying to appease Him. I vote that we dump Him. -James Randi
On the subject of the nature of the gods, the first question is ‘Do the gods exist or do the not?’ It is difficult you may say to deny that they exist. I would agree if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind, it is perfectly easy to do so.
Cicero 106 – 43 BCE
Cicero 106 – 43 BCE
I am reluctant to use the word atheist to describe my own unshakeable disbelief, and that's not because I'm ashamed, afraid, or even embarrassed, but simply because it seems so self-evidently true to me that there is no god, and giving that conviction a special title somehow dignifies what it denies. After all, we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in ghosts or witches.
Jonathon Miller
Jonathon Miller
Do you believe in a personal god?
Labels
- afterlife (3)
- agnostic (1)
- AIDS (1)
- Al Hazen (1)
- America Alone (1)
- Atheism (18)
- atheism religion dawkins hitchens pope (1)
- atheist (4)
- baptism (1)
- Barbara Hall (1)
- belief (1)
- Ben Stein (1)
- Bertrand Rusell (1)
- bible (4)
- bird crap (1)
- blasphemy (1)
- Brazil (1)
- brock (3)
- Brock University (1)
- Canada (1)
- Canadian Islamic Congress (1)
- Carl Sagan (1)
- Catholic Chruch (1)
- Catholic Church (3)
- Charles Templeton (1)
- Christianity (5)
- Christopher Hitchens (3)
- condoms (1)
- Convert (1)
- convert the heathens (1)
- Cosmic Platypus (1)
- Creationism (1)
- Dan Barker (3)
- Danish cartoons (1)
- Dara O'Brian (1)
- David Goicoechea (1)
- david goicoeecha (3)
- Dawkins (4)
- Debate (3)
- Democracy (2)
- Demon Haunted World (1)
- Dinesh D'Souza (4)
- does god exist (4)
- Doubting Thomas (1)
- Douglas Adams (1)
- Douglas Wilson (1)
- Dragon*Con (1)
- Enemies of Reason (1)
- environment (1)
- Epicurus (3)
- ethics (4)
- evangelism (1)
- evidence (1)
- evil (1)
- Examiner (1)
- Expelled (1)
- facts (1)
- Faith (2)
- Free Gift (1)
- free speech (2)
- free thought (1)
- freedom (1)
- Freedom from Religion Foundation (2)
- freedom of speech (1)
- get in the fucking sack (1)
- Ghost Hunting (2)
- Ghost Trackers (1)
- ghosts (1)
- god (17)
- god mail (1)
- gods (1)
- Grant LaFleche (9)
- Greece (2)
- Hitchens (2)
- Horst Klaus (1)
- human rights commission (1)
- Intelligent Design (1)
- irrationality (1)
- Islam (4)
- Jake LaMotaa (1)
- James Randi (1)
- Jesus (6)
- justice (1)
- Justin Trottier (1)
- Ken Miller (1)
- letters (1)
- logic (1)
- love (1)
- Maclean's Magazine (1)
- mail (1)
- Mark Steyn (1)
- Michael Shermer (1)
- Micheal Coren (1)
- Mohammad (1)
- morality (5)
- morals (2)
- Mormons (1)
- Mother Teresa (2)
- movie (1)
- Muslim students (1)
- Muslims (3)
- Niagara (1)
- Niagara Area Paranormal Society (1)
- Niagara Secular Humanists (1)
- Nietzsche (1)
- Paranormal Society (1)
- pascal's wager (3)
- Pelham Library (1)
- Peter Youngren (2)
- pets (3)
- philosophy (1)
- Plato (2)
- Pope Benedict (2)
- problem of evil (1)
- quack science (1)
- rationality (4)
- reason (4)
- Religion (12)
- religon (1)
- Ricahrd Dawkins (1)
- Richard Dawkins (4)
- Rushdie (1)
- Salman Rushdie (1)
- Sam Harris (1)
- science (6)
- secular humanism (2)
- secularism (1)
- Shane Meehan (1)
- sharia law (1)
- Skeptics (1)
- Socrates (1)
- St. Catharines (1)
- Stalin (1)
- suffering (1)
- teapot (1)
- The Secret (1)
- Thomas Paine (1)
- tree stump (1)
- ultilitarianism (1)
- UPS (1)
- utilitarianism (1)
- virgin mary (1)
- Whats so Great about Christianity (3)
5 comments:
That's great! Where did the clip originate?
Dan
It is from a PBS documentary called "A Christian Nation". There is a weblink in the info on the original Youtube page.
I find it odd that someone who is so anti-fundamentalism is becoming so fundamental about atheism. I am just saying.
dan- I made a mistake before. The documentary is actually called "A Rough history of disbelief."
"Anonymous said...
I find it odd that someone who is so anti-fundamentalism is becoming so fundamental about atheism. I am just saying. "
From your comments you appear to know me, so how about next time you use your name, ok? I post all comments made on this blog, critical of my point of view or not. There is no need to skulk behind an anonymous handle. I welcome all points of view here.
As for your general comment, you are rather incorrect.
The religious fundamentalist is driven by an unwavering belief that they have all the answers. They believe their interpretation of whatever holy book they follow is the only possible correct one - so other believers who do not share their particular sectarian view are apostates. Moreover, they strive to try and make everyone like them - violently in the most extreme cases. Fundamentalism cannot brook other religions.
Is that atheism in general or my point of view in particular? It is not.
Atheism generally has no dogmatic belief system at all. "Fundamentalism" in the manner in which you use it - that is to say that my atheism is a religious dogma - is simply not correct.
All an atheist is saying is 'I will not believe in that for which there is no evidence." Period. There is no dogma, not claim on absolute truth and certainly no desire to make everyone else an atheist - to the point of blowing up skyscrapers in the most extreme cases.
Perhaps you refer to my often negative response to religious dogma? Even then I am not "fundamentalist". What I am trying to point out is that our public institutions are secular, and secular for a very good reason. It is only through a secular government that the rights of all people can be protected. This includes, by the way, the right of the religious fundamentalist to be a religious fundamentalist. And I would not have it any other way.
I am arguing in defense of the principles of a free and democratic society. One that was not founded on, despite rhetorical flourish, on any religious book or principles at all.
We came very close in Ontario to having Muslim religious courts as binding legal alternatives or our civil justice system. This is something that those with concern for democratic rights should argue against.
I am arguing that we cannot allow religious doctrine to undermine science and education because in the view of the fundamentalist, it is blasphemous. If you follow the headlines in this regard you'll see the assault on scientific and educational institutions by religious groups.
Above all I am arguing against the point of view that demonize, shun, attack, and try to deny the rights of those who are not of their particular faith. I am arguing against those who think that democracy should favour their religion over all others.
If I believe in anything, it is in the importance of democracy and freedom of the individual to not be controlled by religious authority.
Oh one last point: There is one massive difference between myself and a religious fundamentalist: I remain always open to new evidence and I am willing to change my views accordingly. No fundamentalist will ever say that.
July 3, 2007 10:34 PM
Post a Comment