Asshat Quote of the Day

I think attributing all the problems in the world to religion can have unfortunate political consequences, because it makes us ill-inclined to address grievances and defuse tensions. Dawkins has said that if not for religion there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you believe that, then Obama needn’t bother trying to stop the settlements. We know religion isn’t going away. So if the problem is religion, why make the effort to improve the facts on the ground?...I think Sam Harris believes there is a transcendent source of meaning in the universe, and although I might get there by a different route, I tend to agree. I would say there’s reason to believe there is some sort of purpose unfolding through the natural workings of the world. This doesn’t by itself establish the existence of a god, much less a good one, but it seems to cut against the grain of pure atheism. I don’t know what he would say to that, but it would be fun to have that discussion. - Bob Wright

One of the most annoying things in some atheist's world-view is a bizarre sense of accommodation for religion. That accommodation is what causes the sickness of religion in the first place. In a sense, the exact same personality mechanisms that provides for accommodation to the irrational superstition is what makes people irrational and superstitious in the first place.

Wright asks that if religion is the root of all problems, then what's the point of trying to address the problems? That's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

Of course, if there's a religious component to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, that does not mean that mediation cannot have a positive net effect in helping two disagreeing parties come to agreement on some issue to help improve the situation.

I doubt seriously that Sam Harris would agree that there is some "purpose". That's an awful word. It infers "design" or further.. "decision"... and is thus more accommodationist crap as a gateway to "God".

When somebody uses "believe" and "purpose" in the same sentence, you know there is zero empirical data for what follows those words. When there is no data, there is only irrelevance.

It makes absolutely no difference what Wright "believes", nor does it matter what "purpose" he thinks there is in the universe. That, by definition, is RELIGION.

When atheists make that claim to "purpose" they are doing a great deal of harm to the idea of atheism. They are providing accommodation to the highly religious to say.. "see.. even the atheist admits there is a higher power". It's bullshit, and if there's a membership committee for the atheism club (har), then those jackasses need to be booted out. They're simply another version of the Loon Brigade.

A true atheist, or agnostic, or Gorakian, would not close off the idea of purpose, but we definitely do not think there is any evidence for one.. and therefore it's not something that should be a consideration in any serious policy discussion.

Or more simply.. do I think there could be "purpose"? Ya.. might be... though there is zero evidence for any supernatural forces at work in the universe, and therefore the idea is irrelevant.

And finally.. yes.. many of us believe that religion is the fundamental cause of all disharmony in the world, but to insist that it "isn't going away", is more accommodationsist drivel.

Religion is on a steady decline, and the better society functions, the less need people will have for it, evolving to the point where religion becomes a quaint anachronism.. something where others point and giggle when somebody drops to their knees and asks the invisible man on the cloud for something.. which never.. ever.. gets delivered.

Of COURSE religion will die. It's just going to take a while.. but in the meantime, I'm tired of atheists apologizing for religion and jackasses like Sullivan eating it up as vindication for his own intellectual failings.