Quite an interesting video.

Is this the end result of the senseless political correctness that we also deal with here?

I assume Pat Cordell believes in using physical force to stop a man who will use physical force against him. Islam is a religion that believes in using physical force to promote its beliefs. Since physical force trumps logical arguments; unless the new atheists can win on the battlefield their words will not amount to very much. Adventists, on the other hand, don’t believe in using physical force. We believe either God will protect us, because we are obedient to Him, or we perish. Since atheists don’t believe in God cold steel is the only thing that can save them.

I believe that this article, signed onto by several major Islamic scholars, reveals a more nuanced idea than "the faith believes in using violence to promote its beliefs." Although it is in direct response to a more specific misunderstanding, it gets at the over-heated rhetoric and broad judging of an entire faith by the extreme actions of a few.

Muslims, like people everywhere, are interested in greater security, education for their children, health care and jobs. Like other Americans, they too want to practice their religion freely. That does not mean executing people who were raised in different faiths. . .

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=272&SP=1

Eric Scott is right that we're in this together, and ideally we should explore life and the quest for meaning together. Since that is never going to happen, the best we can hope for is respectful dialogue, as Scott argues.

Arguments are like stories, the most appealing one usually wins out. And if you don't have an appealing story, the next best you can do is to browbeat--to create a climate that's hostile to the other point of view. Since theoretical atheism (as opposed to practical atheism, which is very popular) is a minority point of view, it has always relied heavily on tactics of intellectual intimidation and ridicule.

But so has religion. Just think about the story of Elijah and the Ba'al priests. Here you have the prophet of God mercilessly mocking the religion of the Ba'al worshipers, very much in the language of modern atheists. And believers have delighted in the story for centuries. Just imagine those idiots dancing around the altar, invoking their impotent god, and cutting themselves in the process, all to no effect. But this took place before the age of irony.

Very well said, Aage.

"... we're in this together, and ideally we should explore life and the quest for meaning together. Since that is never going to happen, the best we can hope for is respectful dialogue, as Scott argues." -- Aage Rendalen

Unfortunately most people feel too threatened by disagreement to handle it calmly, and are instead driven to react in a sort of belligerent fear. It might be easier if there were some way all 6+ Billion of us could sit down, realize how many different points of view there are in the world, and admit things are complicated and that each person deserves our brotherhood and respect -- but, as you say, that is never going to happen save amongst occasional individuals.

"I assume Pat Cordell believes in using physical force to stop a man who will use physical force against him." -- JB

Probably so -- and I'm sure many Adventists would think twice if their life was at stake. I imagine that my own Christian-esque ideal of agape and brotherly empathy would break down if there were a terrorist holding me hostage with a gun down my throat. Dialogue takes two.

I would still be inclined, however, to point Condell to the likes of http://altmuslim.com/ (Which I discovered through Alexander's link), as an example of someplace where inter-cultural discussion can and should take place, as an alternative to dismissive anger.

A friend of mine gave me the following critique, and I thought it worthwhile to reproduce my response here.

"I don't think that liberal religion (Christianity in particular) is a fusion of secular humanism and is merely a lip-service to belief... I truly fail to see how anything in liberal Christianity makes it a lesser belief."

Ah, yes, I think you've caught me with my pants down. I really don't know what I'm talking about when I speak of "liberal Christianity," and have limited experience with it. You may remember from previous discussions we've had, too, that I've found it particularly difficult to empathize with theistic evolution and related paradigms, which only goes to show that I don't really understand them. It was naive of me to stereotype "liberal religion" in my attempt to set up a dichotomy between secular humanism and conservative religion.

That said, I did have an image in my mind that I won't so easily remit, and which I was struggling to express when I slipped into blanket dismissals. If I were to have a second chance at writing that paragraph, I would instead describe the scenario of a dispassionate, almost apathetic person who is religious in name but expends little energy to drawing corollaries between and applying biblical teachings to life. Instead, his personality and life's direction is defined primarily by the culture around him, which is what I am asserting to be essentially secular. This can lead to the vague belief, reminiscent of that espoused by New Atheism, that religion should be confined to "private life," which could seem reasonable if one is used to a religion which fits neatly in such a box. I can think of several acquaintances -- Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, etc -- who hold such a view, and I would point again to my paraphrase of Sam Harris for support.

I think that Dennet, Harris and Dawkins point out that it is very difficult to have an honest dialog of ideas where religionists fall back on "well that's what it says in the Bibile and I believe it". There is nothing that ends a meaningful conversation faster than such a statement.

I find the author's characterization of secularism as repackaged apathy to be way off base. In my experience with Humanists, Secularists and Atheists is that we are far from apathetic. Instead we hold stong views on social justice. Many of us are activists in civil, animal, environmental and GBLT rights. We campaign for the mentally ill, the homeless and others at the fringes of society. Quite honestly, over my 40 some odd years in the SDA church I have never met less apathetic people when it comes to the broader society, especially in the USA. The least apathetic people I have met are in the GLBT community where many fight for the rights of all marginalized people.

Carlitas, I have also found the same sensitivity of non-religious people about the injustice around them. Often, it is the religious who are insulated and remain in their own holy enclave. In the vernacular use, "mission work" has always meant only "foreign missions." The needy right under our noses are not seen as worthy as those who live thousands of miles across the water--who are in need of Western Christianizing.

Tolerance of evil or anti-God or anti-truth seems to be all the fad. I have experienced interacting with two avowed Atheists. What do they offer, nothing but this life. I for one am very wary of this type of misleading, anti-God rhetoric. Offer something equal to the Salvation offered by the Gospel or be still, be quiet, and go live your life until you turn back to dust. Is that too harsh, not as harsh as what they try to get Christians to believe, that this life is all there is.

At least this I know for sure. The Biblical description of man is right on. The Biblical description of man's need is right one. The Biblical description of man's duty is right on.
The Biblical description of the source of man's redemption is very appealing.

I need all of the above, therefore, If the description of the problem and the description of the solution fit, I for one embrace it with thanskgiving and offer to others the same Grace that I have found and invite all with all the enthusiasm I can muster. Tom

Praise God from whom all blessing flow. (Try it you;ll like it!)

RDS
You say:"Tolerance of evil or anti-God or anti-truth seems to be all the fad."

You are not saying that atheism is synonomous with "tolerance of evil", do you?

And as to your wish that people should shut up unless they share your point of view, well that is a fond wish we all have but how would we ever advance in our understanding of one another and of life itself if our wish were granted?

There are actually a positive side to atheism--or at least lacking faith--and that has to do with how we treat people and the planet. For believers, there is always the cop-out available that evils we could have remedied, eventually will be redressed by God. And as for the care of this planet, it obviously makes a difference if you don't believe that a better one is right around the corner. Apocalypticists probably won't be as concerned about people destroying this Earth as are people of no faith, since they believe that if humanity doesn't destroy the planet, God for sure will.

When people hear the word "atheist" they think of the in-your-face village blasphemer or the modern-day crusaders that seek to demolish their ideological opponents (which, incidentally, is what many people of faith also seek to do). Most of us who lack faith are not like that. We are where we are because
our convictions won't let us go any farther. What we resent is zealotry, be it Christian or Atheist. Think of us as espousing the values of NPR, open-minded, willing to be persuaded but not browbeaten. In order words, very much like everybody else.

Aege, if we have no common ground to start the conversation, i.e., the Bible, what is the purpose. The Covenants, Old and New, the Abrahamic promise is there. Go, extra-canonical and we are in the deep grass. I have no problem with discussion until the Anti-Atheist begins to say the Jews copied from other civilizations rather than their way being God given. I have a problem with the Anti-Atheist's plural "gods" idea. Because a "god" is mentioned in history, doesn't mean it existed other than in stone or someone's imagination. If that is where you are searching, you are into the winds blowing you around.

RDS
"Beware of the man with only one book."

The Bible has played such a prominent role in our civilization that we all have a stake in how it is interpreted. I understand that you are uncomfortable with people who approach the Bible from a different point of view than what you do but I would argue that we too have a say in this matter.

I'm sorry, you lost me when you mentioned "Anti-Atheists". Do you mean Christians attacking atheists?

"16 Percent of U.S. Science Teachers Are Creationists" says the recent headline on ABC news. This is considered a "problem." The "problem" the numbers are illustrating is that the secular, evolutionary perspective is not adequately poised to impose itself on the country's children.

Let's see if we can end this bold maddness... there! It worked! (Somebody forgot to close their tags!)

"I find the author's characterization of secularism as repackaged apathy to be way off base." -- Carlitas

Whoops -- that's not exactly what I meant to express. I have many atheist/humanist friends who are among the post impassioned and creative people I know. I specifically referred to the New Atheist's brand of "tolerance" as apathetic, though I'll admit even that likely misses the mark.

Now that I've been called on mis-characterizing both liberal religion and humanism, let me post this quote, which I read last night and does a number to get at what I was really trying to say:

"There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohommedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life."

-- William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Lecture I (1902)

This is where the apathy lies. What I called a "liberal Christian" is someone who is infused by a hybrid of nominal Christian believe and a secular humanist culture, and is an "ordinary" as defined by James. Likewise with what I described as the naive "tolerance" of New Atheism. Both labels were probably misused, but the core idea is still there.

"I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohommedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit."

Which is a wonderful way of describing most folks who are religious, regardless of their particular belief: it is the tradition under which they were born and raised; IOW, second-hand religion, which is about as useful as a srait-jacket: seldom fits comfortably, but hard to get out of.

This is an interesting discussion (and maybe a dead thread).

I was a little disappointed that nobody followed up on the story of Elijah and the priests of Ba'al. You talked about the mockery, but not the ending. You do remember how that story ends, right? Elijah oversees the mass slaughter of the pagan priests by a religious mob. I think that if you are a Christian, you are required to believe that God approved. Religious persecution is condoned in the Bible. Islam does not have a monopoly on this.

In fact, I see no reason to believe, based on the Bible, that it is possible for multiple groups of fundamentalist Trust Believers to peaceably co-exist. Look at the Israelites coming into Canaan to set up God's promised land of true religion. The Israelites were incredibly intolerant. They killed gay people, Sabbath breakers, and anyone who was not of their faith. They killed children, infants, pregnant women, old people, non-combatants. They were not "mission-minded." There was no attempt to "convert" the natives. They committed religious and ethnic cleansing, all with the apparent blessing of the God that Christians worship.

Ironically, we're told that the reason the Israelites failed in establishing a firm religious state was that they did not go far enough! They were a little too tolerant and allowed some of the natives to survive.

For a long, long time, I felt that I was required as a Christian and Adventist to defend these events. I don't feel that way anymore. I think that secularists who believe that everyone can co-exist are naive. They do not understand true belief. Most faiths are mutually exclusive. If you get down to the basics, these faiths are bitter, implacable enemies and their true adherents will be as well. In that sense, only secularism (the kind that produces humanitarian zeal and religious apathy) can give us peace on earth.

I have been a True Believer, and I maintain that True Believers are terrifying people. If I had thought God wanted me to kill you, I would have. This is how the Levites won their priesthood - in blood through religious zeal.

I'm glad that I'm not that person anymore.