A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion
The original article is from the NY times: A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion
But you can read the whole article here.
And the responses are decent.
My own response is that Religion should not be above attack. The more people that belong to a religion, the less it is attacked, scrutinized, and analyzed. While there are many faith-based charities, there are plenty of non-religious charities as well (Off hand I think of amnesty international and the International red cross/red crescent).
I'd really like to see some examples of "the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean." I would never think to personally attack someone based on their beliefs, thou I may attack their beliefs. And I'm not sure that calling an atheist "fundamentalist" is appropriate at all, due to the lack of set belief system. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. While religious fundamentalists have strict dogma they follow, atheists have only one common belief. When your one belief is their is no god, and you look to proven scientific evidence for everything else, how would you be able to compromise on that?
Shall we say 2+2=5? If we say 2+2=4 and we do not waver, are we fundamentalist? Or are we "intolerant & mean" for disregarding some peoples' belief in high values of 2?
"'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.' The mind, of course, is not the individual mind, but the mind of the Party, 'which is collective and immortal.'"
But you can read the whole article here.
And the responses are decent.
My own response is that Religion should not be above attack. The more people that belong to a religion, the less it is attacked, scrutinized, and analyzed. While there are many faith-based charities, there are plenty of non-religious charities as well (Off hand I think of amnesty international and the International red cross/red crescent).
I'd really like to see some examples of "the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean." I would never think to personally attack someone based on their beliefs, thou I may attack their beliefs. And I'm not sure that calling an atheist "fundamentalist" is appropriate at all, due to the lack of set belief system. Atheism is a belief that there is no god. While religious fundamentalists have strict dogma they follow, atheists have only one common belief. When your one belief is their is no god, and you look to proven scientific evidence for everything else, how would you be able to compromise on that?
Shall we say 2+2=5? If we say 2+2=4 and we do not waver, are we fundamentalist? Or are we "intolerant & mean" for disregarding some peoples' belief in high values of 2?
"'Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.' The mind, of course, is not the individual mind, but the mind of the Party, 'which is collective and immortal.'"
posted by new.atheist at 1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home