I was so totally going to let this go. But I have changed my mind. Christianity is now equated with gassing Jews?
Thanks. Those are very “progressive and libertarian values” JJRoss.
And what isn’t violent about that statement? If Christians are all Hitlers for professing faith in Christ, I can only assume we are to be eliminated…or perhaps “liquidated” would be the better term. (Just as a small question, though, which of our neighbors possessing nuclear power believes in the literal interpretation of Revelation?”)
I only have this little blurb in a blog from someone who appears to be atheist himself, but what exactly does Mr. Harris have to say about torture? How and when is it good? And how is it a nonviolent approach to social reform?
If Daryl wants to draw suspicion on the Belien’s for comparing Belgian officials to Nazi’s, can I also throw out the words of his commentor for comparing me to a Nazi? Or to a terrorist who flew into the WTC? And perhaps be inferring that I be tortured for some end I do not know?
And Mr. Harris, I believe the Apocalypse is a Christian concept. It merely means “revelation.”
Perhaps off topic, but how does someone who says this book, which is a call for a “reason-based revolution” is “right on the mark” get to be president of a theological seminary?
On a lighter note, if you haven’t submitted to the Carnival of Kid Comedy, yet, please do! Submissions are due by midnight.
christianity, atheism, The End of Faith, Sam Harris
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
[And perhaps off topic, but how does someone who says this book, which is a call for a "reason-based revolution" is "right on the mark" get to be president of a theological seminary?] Oh, but I don’t really consider this off topic at all!
Perhaps Joseph C. Hough, Jr. was so busy studying various opinions about God that he forgot to read the Bible. More likely he has just bought in to the secular view that man is the measure of all things and that he should reason his way to “god” and now believes in a god that doesn’t exist anywhere except for in the recesses of his own cluttered mind. A god we have reasoned in to being and can fit in our brain is littler than we are, but the God of revelation… He is something worth worshipping. How sad that he is leading curriculum development and setting the tone of a seminary with such dribble as a basic assumption.
["Here is a ringing challenge to all Americans who recognize the danger to American democracy posed by the political alliance of right wing religion and politics and the failure of the tepid and tentative responses by liberal persons of faith.]
Mr. Hough does not understand the fundamental principals upon which our civil government was formed. America is not a democracy: America was and remains a Constitutional Republic. This fact has become a little inconvenient for people dedicated to an “evolving” system of thought. We need new ideas to bring new man into a new century… A simple majority would be so much easier. If fifty-one percent of the people agree homosexual marriage and killing unborn babies is the right thing to do, well… majority rules.
[While one might dispute some of the claims and arguments presented by the author...] Gee, how could I possibly dispute or even take offense at Mr. Harris’ claim that religion is equal to mental illness and if we don’t get rid of it we will blow each to bits. Oh, and let’s not forget that I shouldn’t apparently believe anything. Atheist are just as dogmatic in their beliefs and I haven’t called on them to stop believing.
Who thinks like this?
But while we are at it… How does Peter Singer, professor of philosophy at Princeton, a school whose motto is, “Under God’s Power She Flourishes,” make the statement “At last we have a book that focuses on the common thread that links Islamic terrorism with the irrationality of all religious faith.”
Thanks! I can always count on you to get me onto my personal soapbox.
(*note: This comment was taken from my HSB account.)
I’ve only been able to have an “intelligent” discussion with one professed atheist in my life. All others have resulted in a continual string of personal insults full of explicatives. The main argument against me is the dogmatism of holding one belief over another and expecting others to do the same in the absence of scientific evidence.
1) What “scientific evidence” is there that God does NOT exist? It isn’t there. Oh yeah. Science is inherently atheistic. If you “invoke” God, it isn’t science. Circular reasoning at its best.
2) Religion is the root of all evil in this world. Wait…what was it Hitler and Stalin did and who was their God? Ooh, I do believe all that about taking control of the gene pool to stop the German race from being perverted by lesser peoples came straight from evolution. Along with the creation of “Uebermensch” (Superman). The Jews were lower on the evolutionary ladder. We know because university professors in Germany taught us that. Hospitals for invalids were emptied pretty much straight into the concentration camps, followed by Jews and then public dissidents. And under FDR, we did what? What religious motivation was there in the syphillis experimentation carried out against the African Americans? Was the forced sterilization of those deemed retarded in Canada a result of religion? How about the gathering up of Aboriginals, claiming them to be “the missing link” and shipping them all over Eurpoe to be studied, experimented on and even displayed in zoos?
3) Oh, we cannot judge the phiolosophy of atheism and evolution based on the evil things some men have done. People just do bad things every so often, and use whatever philosophy they can to support them. Really? Why can’t I use that argument to defend myself against attacks against Christianity regarding the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades? My religion does not even logically lead to that. The “religion” of evolution, however, naturally leads to the conclusion that if we want to survive as a species, we should take control of our evolution and use selective breeding and perhaps even population control meausres in order to eradicate segments of the population which are “genetically weak.”
You can hop on your soapbox over here anytime you like! I almost didn’t publish this last night. I don’t particularly want to alienate anyone, but I was a litle miffed to say the least. What is it about the UN Conventiono on the Rights of the Child that bothers me? In part, because it gives people who believe like this power over what I can and cannot say to my child…and they view the passing on of one’s faith as equivalent to child abuse. Actually, as equivalent to gassing Jews.
Oh the absurdity of it all. The totured logic in some of these statements is amazing. I’ve received similar comments in the past. I just don’t get it.
I’ve actually had worse, but this one struck me for some reason. Perhaps it is in the inherent irony of the position. The gassing of the Jews was done by a man bent on eradicating faith and “lesser” humans from his country in order to create a race that was “beautiful, strong and cruel” [paraphrase.]
And the solution to this problem? Do exactly what Hitler did.
Re Harris on torture, as linked from my blog, here’s his essay on the subject in case you wanted to read it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html