So, if you have no capacity or desire for love, then it's ok to do whatever you want? Kill, rape, torture whoever stands in the way of what you want? What's it matter if there are no eternal consequences?

Why not steal pop cans out of a homeless man's shopping cart? Why not take Social Security checks out of the mailboxes of the destitute widow living down the street? Why not refuse to pay debts that you willingly agreed to pay back? Why not make fun of handicapped and scarred and deformed people if you get a kick out of that? Why not cheat people out of everything you can get away with? As long as you don't feel love, it doesn't matter right? Sure, the world won't be as "nice" a place to live in, but what's it matter? After all, there are no eternal consequences right?

Now assuming that God does not exist, then the only the pretense and assumption that he does exist is what keeps our society from falling into barbaric chaos?

I just don't follow you logic Bryan. (maybe I just refuse to see it)

I believe we are born with an instinct for right and wrong programmed into us, it was necssary to keep our tribes together for survival purposes. I don't think it's love that keeps us from taking social security checks out of people's mailboxes, but I think it's the instinct to take care of our own. If we went around killing and raping eachother all the time, humankind wouldn't have had a chance to survive. That said there will always be people who do steal, rape, kill, etc. That's tragic, but it's not because they have no religion or belief in god. Look at all the wars, the crusades, the inquisition... millions and millions throughout history slaughtered in the name of god. And present day the slaughter that's taking place in the name of Islam. The London subway attacks. The twin towers. All tragedies that would not be occuring if not for people's fanatical belief in their god. Name one war or atrocity that was committed in the name of atheism.

Wow, that's an interesting point Darren.

No, I didn't say it was okay to commit wrong if one has no capacity for love. I said a person who has no capacity for love has a skewed view on what is right or wrong.



If all you have to live for is what is given to you in this lifetime, then that is a reason enough for me to not do wrong.

While I agree with most of what you said, Darren, I just thought I'd point out that the essential point about what Richard Dawkins and his ilk miss when writing about trying to defend atheism is the fact that the most popular brand of atheism in the history of the world was the brand that was enforced as a part of Marxism. A majority of the world's population today live in regimes that enforce atheism as a national religion of sorts, and 7 million of my kinsmen killed in the Ukraine during the 1930's in the name of Joseph Stalin only cements my belief that pure atheism is just as much a religion as pure theism.

Bryan

Good point Bryan. I guess any '-ism' taken to extremes is truly dangerous. One can only hope a vigorous democracy like ours that allows freedom of speech and religion, and provides for separation of church and state, can survive the current state of the world.

Woo-hoo! Thanks, Bryan-
i've been irritated by Dawkins etc. for ages; it's never been a fun realization that the noisiest opponents of theism are equally as rigid and dogmatic in their views as the staunchest religionists can be, and seem to most people as bitter, arrogant blowhards who yearn to justify their inner selfishness by vociferously demanding all others realize what stupid pathetic losers they are, "I'm really smart, so whatever conclusion I reach must be the correct one." There are no Mr. Spocks in real life, even the most intellectually motivated person in the world has an emotional base, and to pretend that somehow it's possible or desirable to completely eliminate emotion from human discourse is just another form of worship, rather than honest inquiry/acceptance.
"clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right- here i am..."

You had me until here. Not that I disagree, per se - more that I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here. It sounds to me like you're saying worship separates emotion from human discourse and in such, is dishonest.

Must be the way I'm reading it.

Anyhoo - I'm with ya in the rest of it!

M

I don't find Dawkins irritating, bitter, or arrogant. (Well, maybe a bit arrogant, but perhaps part of that could be attributed to his Oxford English accent) To me he simply states his atheistic beliefs and reasons for believing that way, albeit in a rather verbose way. Whatever your opinion of him is, I think he offers a good counterbalance to the religious fanatics out there, like Pat Robertson et.al.

No, I'm saying that exalting logic, rationality, etc. above all else is still exalting something, still espousing the "One True Way". People that are serving their egos in the name of science or religion bug me; the whole "I'm so darn wise I don't care how I come off" thing gets under my skin- whether Augustine or Ayn Rand, wading through acres of self-love to get to some brilliant ideas gets mighty old. Newton may have been a genius, but from all accounts he was an insufferable jerk, and a lousy teacher. Einstein may have thought the world of himself, but he knew enough not to rub it in everyone's face all the time, or delude himself that everyone else shared that opinion. I guess Dawkins bothers me b/c he's so interested in being right, he ends up only preaching to the converted; he'll never be called "the Carl Sagan of atheism".