Todd Hesselberg: You have no standard of right or wrong. There is no truth in your world view. God brings order, atheism is chaos and anarchy. ...All laws are based on a type of religion believe it or not. Atheism is unable to create a ordered and free society.
Imagine if Todd Hesselberg had said all of this to Jews -- that Jews have no standard of right and wrong, that there is no truth in the Jewish world, and that only Jesus can bring order while denial of Jesus leads only to chaos and anarchy. Do you think that anyone would fail to recognize this as Antisemitism? I doubt it -- even people expressing exactly such views tend to recognize that they are Antisemitic.
Hesselberg, though, is in complete denial about the bigotry he expresses towards atheists -- and he's not alone, because it's rare for anyone to recognize such views as bigoted and hate mongering. They are convinced that they are making purely neutral, objective observations about how atheists are totally untrustworthy, immoral, unpatriotic, and even demonic threats to America's moral social order.
Todd Hesselberg: Even the speed limit is one of religion. In making it there is the belief that we are to preserve life and life is precious. ...Thou shall not kill. There are actions we should NOT do and there are actions we should take to preserve life.
At the very best this is a confusion between morality and religion. It's true that even speed limits are, in effect, matters of morality -- they may seem at first glance to be purely practical matters, but they exist in large part to protect people's safety and that's a moral issue. It's obvious that no one enacts any particular speed limits because of religion, directly or indirectly.
Even assuming this most generous interpretation, though, leaves us with an extremely bigoted statement from Todd Hesselberg: religion is required for basic moral principles (like protecting people from harm or even death), therefore secular atheists are unable to enact such laws. Secular atheists, according to Hesselberg, can't see the value of laws protecting people's lives, can't see any point in having such laws, and can't really support the enactment of such laws.
It goes without saying that Todd Hesselberg has no empirical evidence to support such a claim -- he can't point to any studies demonstrating that atheists are unsupportive of health and safety protection generally or speed limits in particular. He also can't point to more secular nations to show that their laws on such matters are weaker or have less support among nonbelievers. All this really is, then is bigotry -- Hesselberg is expressing a prejudice against atheists which is not based on any empirical fact but which has the direct effect of making atheists look worse and religious theists look better.
Todd Hesselberg: Try and be nice now and don't call names. Can you do that?
Isn't it interesting how some Christians Todd Hesselberg will persist in expounding on the rankest sort of bigotry, but then complain that it isn't "nice" when others call them on this bigotry (not to mention when others dare to question or challenge their religion generally)? I'm not going to claim that being "nice" is worthless or pointless, but I must say that there is little point or value to it if it allows people to say bigoted things but denies others the ability to say "hey, that's bigoted."
At best, this may be an example of a division between civility and decency, a subject I and many others have talked about. Too often, demands for greater "civility" in public discourse are made at the expense of basic decency: critics of religion or some political systems are criticized for not being "civil" in their critiques, but the people making these complaints never express any concern over the gross indecency coming out of these religious or political systems. Thus the indecency of serious homophobia is given a pass, but strongly worded criticism of homophobia is criticized for being uncivil.
Typo in title. Bigoty should be Bigotry.
Even the speed limit is one of religion…
When all you have is a
hammerBible, every problem looks likea nailJesus…It always amazes me when people make philosophical statements that are only based on Western religions. Societies in the Far East have had a society based on virtue for the last 2500 years. They do not have a religion based morality. Taoism and Confucianism are philosophies that were treated like religion, but they were propounded by mortal men not invisible men in the sky. Their morality is more localized, do not do any thing that will make you or your family lose face. The Chinese think that western religion is a waste of time and energy.
>You have no standard of right or wrong.
What I find interesting is that if all he was claiming was that “atheism” provides no framework for larger life, I wouldn’t disagree. But it’s interesting how “you” have no standard of “right or wrong”–as an atheist. It’s just off the rails. My atheism does not provide me a standard of right or wrong. Correct. But that should not be misunderstood to be a statement that as an atheist, _I_ have no standard of right or wrong. That’s just stupidity.
>Even the speed limit is one of religion. In making it there is the belief that we are to preserve life and life is precious. …Thou shall not kill.
What I find funny is that when a religion makes a statement that is inherent to the world at large, suddenly it’s _religion_ imposing the statement on the world. So, if the religion says the sun shall rise each day–somehow the sun coming up becomes a religious act in the adherent’s mind. Social animals have rules. Generally they _do_ allow killing. In the U.S.–arguably the most Christian nation in the world, we “kill” legally and have laws about when, where, and how it’s OK to kill one another. Obviously we also do not sanction certain types of killing and condemn it and punish it. This is the same for any social group–even non-human social groups. Not killing others in your in-group is just good survival, so long as someone in your in-group isn’t threatening the welfare of the society. The fact that a religious leader–or anyone–recognizes something that is so simple a dog can figure it out–is hardly a testament to the truth of religion. It’s merely religion recognizing a greater reality of life–such as “the sun will rise”: That is, don’t kill people you need to help you survive. Rules against killing aren’t based on religious instruction. Religious instruction, rather, is based on the reality that it’s good sense to avoid unjustified killings within your own social group. Again, putting the cart before the horse is just stupidity. It’s like saying that it’s a good thing we built this dam here, because right after we put it up–a large reservoir formed–and without this dam, all that water would have come down into the valley and flooded the town! Brilliant.
>Try and be nice now and don’t call names. Can you do that?
Icing on the cake. This person writes that I have no basis for “right and wrong”–calls me, in essence “immoral” simply because I don’t accept religion, and then tries to argue that nobody can be moral without religion–but wants to then cry foul over “name calling” once he’s maligned others? That’s a bit of shutting the barn door once the horses are out–isn’t it?
I think Hesselberg exhibits exactly what religion does to a great majority of hard-core believers…
it demolishes, quite thoroughly, whatever ‘native’ potential ability a person is born with for any genuine rational, critical thinking.
On that note (An out of tune, Concert A flat?)…and after reading the last part of Tracie’s previous comment…permit me (or not…see if I care?) to indulge in a wee bit of (mild as it is, for this particular atheist) “incivility”…
[in the voice of SNL's "Lisa Lubner"?]:
“Oh Todd…your such a total arse!”