Consistent with a medieval conscience: A response to Conrad Black

It's hard to encompass the entirety of #ConradBlack's (I can call him that since his criminal record was enough for the British ["he is ineligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords"]  and Canadians ["removed from the Order of Canada and stripped of Privy Council position"] to revoke his titular status as superior to the rest of us ) stridency in his editorial:

I put this as simply as possible: Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West

Firstly, when you indicate the "West", to whom are you referring? Does your West include Japan? If so, then does it exclude Shinto Buddhists or include them? It seems to me they would be humble, peaceful, tax-paying members of the Western world. They don't share your Judeo-Christian labelling.  I could go on at length criticising your grandiose gesturing but I think I've made my point.

Secondly, while it is a convenient debating trick to claim your opponent needs to provide your argument, which side needs the existence of a god? It is by logic alone impossible to demonstrate the existence of a non-existent entity. Even if one adopts the opposite supposition, e.g. no one can't disprove the existence of a god, that still leaves the evidence deficit against your position.  Atheism doesn't need gods of any variety to claim what we can.  You haven't a shred of proof (or non-proof) an omnipotent creator nor divine natural "force" exists.

Thirdly, how does one disassociate Islam from the other Abrahamic religions? The tiresome point for atheists that take up the challenge to criticise religious assertions is that coming from a reasoned tradition we must speak from not-ignorance, so before we speak we must research and understand the opposite position. This seems to be an impediment to action the religious side won't take in return.  It is my understanding that Jesus is a minor prophet under Islam, so I don't see how you or anyone can extricate Islam in your "us-them" set representation. In fact, all three Abrahamic religions have been used to justify terrorism and barbarism at many points throughout history, in recent memory the KKK. Or the IRA, and so on.  This convenient Islam sidestep demonstrates how confusing your position is.

Meanwhile, science has done more to advance the human condition than Christianity can claim in 2000 years. This claim can be made against all three Abrahamic religions, they all provide a sales pitch and an empty promise, no matter what Pascal's wager supposes, and while it may seem noble to encourage humanity it beggars what man can accomplish by shackling it to religion. 


Most atheists believe or work in science.  And even if not fully true, if Christianity is lagging the innovation bestowed by science & technology ( safety, health, security, jobs...) then how can anyone reasonably claim those science-appreciating atheists are ruining the West (whatever that is)?

The moral high-ground whereupon you claim to speak from was conceived within the medieval commonsense. Your acceptance of all the fruits of Enlightenment so long as reason and skepticism doesn't interfere with your delusions is the Western problem. This isn't a rare occurrence, I've been in churches where the priest mocks scientists while wearing glasses and speaking into a microphone. The irony escaped him as well.  It is your response here, Conrad, your unwillingness to present a real case while assuming you get to sit in judgement over others that is the real problem in Western culture. Your viewpoint is consistent with a medieval conscience, to mock without justification yet be unwilling to defend your own ideas.

This is precisely why you will hear more atheists, tired of your feckless haranging, that aren't afraid of societal consequences any more than deus ex machina.

Buddhism doesn't exist

People tend to forget, if they get caught up in the Buddhist spiritualism, the human made pageantry and ritual of a religion like Buddhism, that even Buddhism doesn't exist.

As humans, we need "metaphysical" things / mental constructs to help us practice and remember, to share common understanding, to alter behavior, to join a tribe, to cling to, and so on. This has more to do with how our brains work than what and how we choose to believe.

Believing in the eightfold path does not make it real. Believing in reincarnation does not make it real.  Simple people seem to miss the mental flaw underlying the Buddhist belief system.  When I look at Buddhists operating in a Buddhist manner I am reminded that my belief is while Buddha explained and encouraged behaviour that would make his ideals flourish, I do not think Buddha was certain reincarnation or karma existed.

Buddha knew what he was creating didn't exist. Ponder that for a moment.












































































If making his teachings part of a belief system that would spread better and faster needed the extra jewellery of metaphysical constructs, then allow them he did. Like Machiavelli, even the middle way is a practice in pragmatism; ends justifying means. If letting uneducated unwashed illiterate peasants encrust his ideals in ritual and if that made them happier, made them more productive and increased the chances people find harmony, that that was in essence the first compromise of Buddhism with itself.

This reality is why I define my spirituality as "pseudo-Buddhist". No, I will not chant incessantly and play silly human games. I will not pray and meditate for hours for the benefit of a cause or a person. I don't wish anyone ill, I wish all well, but conducting a ceremony made for the other purpose - to solidify the Buddhist practice - is not necessary. It doesn't exist. So in a way I can also claim to be an atheist.

What is necessary if one doesn't want to live as a nihilist or an anarchist,  is to adopt a set of operating principles, based in an understanding of humanity, that allows one to tread lightly in the universe. The eightfold path, offers a compassion and goodwill based philosophy.

Ayn Rand was an atheist

Atheist

Ayn Rand was an atheist.

So if you are a social conservative religious person you are at odds rationally. You can't hug Atlas Shrugged and The Bible equally.  That was her point.  She chose reason. 

Christopher Hitchens at his best

If you are religious, or religious leaning than I recommend that you take an open mind into the following video to consider a critique of religion:


Christopher Hitchens: god is Not Great


Christopher was both eloquent and learned about his area, he does not make a claim without facts to support his viewpoint.
 
He is easy to listen to, his British accent is faint, and his points are clear.

So if you feel your faith/belief can survive an attack, please consider his ideas.

The Atheist is not defined by a god or gods; that is the point.

Taken from Stanford University Philosophy Talk

"Granted all of that, doesn’t it still seem strange to define one’s life by a negative claim, by the non-existence of something."

I was reading the Stanford University Philosophy Talk describing what an atheist is and what they believe.  It seems that philosophers - of all people - should be the ones that understand the basic concepts under discussion.

It is wrong to define an atheist as someone that believes in the nonexistence of god/gods.  Atheists doubt the existence of supernatural forces of any kind, goblins, unicorns or gods. What atheist really means is someone that refutes the claims and can't see any point in wasting time on the issue.  Period.

Atheists are quite happy that you waste time debating nonsense. 

What you meant was an antitheist.  Against God.

An Antitheist is someone that is against the idea of God.  Think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.  These are scientists that realized that all the work they can do in a lab helping one field of research is meaningless compared to the unthinking religious masses torquing society towards silly purposes.  They chose to make a real contribution by attacking god belief as wrong headed and counter productive.

What you will find if you listen to Dawkins or Harris, or even Christopher Hitchens when he was alive, is that they understand the scripture, the Quran, and so on BETTER than the foolish religious people that attempt to confront them!  If people weren't so emotional about their religious programming then they would see how lacking their religious belief was.

Philosopher, be ashamed of your ignorance for what you seek to discredit/ malign.What does your Ph.D. mean if you don't understand what you are talking about?