Comments on: Miscellany: Of drapes and atheism http://www.wordyard.com/2006/11/15/miscellany-drapes/ Technology, politics, culture Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:43:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Balkanized By Fantasy. http://www.wordyard.com/2006/11/15/miscellany-drapes/comment-page-1/#comment-354 Balkanized By Fantasy. Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:29:47 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1170#comment-354 [...] A weird Plate o' shrimp moment.  It seems a lot of people are thinking about Atheism today.Scott Rosenberg has a pointer in one of his posts to a Gary Wolf article in WiredWolf concludes that, although atheism is the logical and philosophically sound stance for a scientific person, there's something off-puttingly evangelical about its most fervent advocates, and that's why the great bulk of us non-believers tend to identify as agnostics instead.I think Scott's painting atheists with an overly broad brush.  To get a view that more lines up with my view on atheism, Jon Carroll has a great column that puts a more tolerant, less fundamental, evangelical spin on atheism.I don't believe that it's religion's fault. I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it's because we feel shame for our actions. "Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK." [...] [...] A weird Plate o’ shrimp moment.  It seems a lot of people are thinking about Atheism today.Scott Rosenberg has a pointer in one of his posts to a Gary Wolf article in WiredWolf concludes that, although atheism is the logical and philosophically sound stance for a scientific person, there’s something off-puttingly evangelical about its most fervent advocates, and that’s why the great bulk of us non-believers tend to identify as agnostics instead.I think Scott’s painting atheists with an overly broad brush.  To get a view that more lines up with my view on atheism, Jon Carroll has a great column that puts a more tolerant, less fundamental, evangelical spin on atheism.I don’t believe that it’s religion’s fault. I believe that human nature is responsible for war and torture and intolerance. I believe that we are beasts, and that every institution we set up reflects our bestial nature. If we drag God into it, it’s because we feel shame for our actions. “Sure, seems bad to kill babies, but God told me to do it, so it must be OK.” [...]

]]> By: Matt Rose http://www.wordyard.com/2006/11/15/miscellany-drapes/comment-page-1/#comment-353 Matt Rose Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:28:59 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1170#comment-353 JRC has a great column in yesterday's Chron re: atheism. Worth a read for sure. Sure Dawkins and the "New Atheists" (I like that term) have a point, but I think JRC has a way better outlook on Atheism. Religion isn't all bad. I challenge anyone to look at St. Peter's Basilica, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and spout Dawkins. Religion, like all other human endeavours, is a full of evil and hypocrisy, but then you look at people like Desmond Tutu, or the Aga Khan, or even less famous religious people that do good work, you have to believe that good things are done for the sake of something that, while unprovable is an undeniable force in human affairs. Just because I think it's a bunch of mystic hooey doesn't make it irrelevant. Go read JRC's column online: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/16/DDGOULJCD31.DTL&feed=rss.jcarroll JRC has a great column in yesterday’s Chron re: atheism. Worth a read for sure. Sure Dawkins and the “New Atheists” (I like that term) have a point, but I think JRC has a way better outlook on Atheism. Religion isn’t all bad. I challenge anyone to look at St. Peter’s Basilica, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and spout Dawkins. Religion, like all other human endeavours, is a full of evil and hypocrisy, but then you look at people like Desmond Tutu, or the Aga Khan, or even less famous religious people that do good work, you have to believe that good things are done for the sake of something that, while unprovable is an undeniable force in human affairs. Just because I think it’s a bunch of mystic hooey doesn’t make it irrelevant.

Go read JRC’s column online:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/16/DDGOULJCD31.DTL&feed=rss.jcarroll

]]> By: Ulrich Hobelmann http://www.wordyard.com/2006/11/15/miscellany-drapes/comment-page-1/#comment-352 Ulrich Hobelmann Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:28:54 +0000 http://www.wordyard.com/?p=1170#comment-352 Actually, I think you can't prove that God doesn't exist. So while I think that having 'one true' (monotheist) religion (where many many developed in different geographical areas in world history) is absurd, I wouldn't say I'm atheist, nor agnostic. There might well be some deity (or where does the universe come from? where does anything come from?), but refuse to believe in a homophobic bearded old guy that influences our daily life and frowns upon unmarried relationships. ;-) Actually, I think you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. So while I think that having ‘one true’ (monotheist) religion (where many many developed in different geographical areas in world history) is absurd, I wouldn’t say I’m atheist, nor agnostic.

There might well be some deity (or where does the universe come from? where does anything come from?), but refuse to believe in a homophobic bearded old guy that influences our daily life and frowns upon unmarried relationships. ;-)

]]>