Somebody warn Dawkins about his analogy!
Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists?
Naïve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor’s mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium.
Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?
I’ve been tempted to use it myself, but it has great dangers, as you can find graphically illustrated on this page.
At least the audience of commenters at Newsweek is split between cheering rationalists and bewildered Christians, with no axes in play yet. Now if he presented this idea in Kearny, on the other hand…
Ah, but Dawkins, as a “militant athorist”, would surely come to such a debate wearing a decent helmet.
He did get the ire of a thoreologians, though:
No, we are not all atheists with respect to polytheist deities from other cultures. Dawkins, in his attempt to knock down the theism of the predominant culture, either forgets, refuses to acknowledge, or plain just doesn’t know that there are pagans of various traditions throughout the U.S., who are quite a bit sophisticated and educated in their theology than he suggests with his mocking first two paragraphs.
Poor pagans. No-one cares enough to diss them directly.
I think Dawkins need to check his hyperbole, too:
…nonbelief in the God of Abraham is the most reviled opinion in America.
He’s not familiar with NAMBLA then…
*shudder*
The fine fellow in that cartoon seems to be a follower of Odin, rather than Thor. I should like to point out that Odin had some respectable traits. He once traded an eye for wisdom.
“At least the audience of commenters at Newsweek is split between cheering rationalists and bewildered Christians, with no axes in play yet”
I do rather like the bit where some fellow tried to argue that there were no “true Atheists” because his friend prayed when he got sent to jail, only to have it slammed right back at him, with one Brian Westley pointing out “what a coincidence! you don’t believe in a true atheist, and I don’t believe in a true theist! Every time I go to a hospital, I see people using knowledge gained from reasoning instead of using e.g. goat entrails, or even just praying, as true theists would do.”
As cute as it is, in practice this argument isn’t that effective, at least among the the sorts of people that I’ve tried it on — the liberal theists making up the bulk of my family and friends.
When I say “Well, why Jaweh and not Odin or Zeus?” they generally claim “well, those other gods were just their culture’s attempts at understanding a higher power” — in other words, they don’t believe that non-Abrahamic gods were necessarily false, just other names for their own god, worshiped in ceremonies appropriate to other cultures.
No doubt after Christianity is replaced by the next major religion, Scientology or something, people will claim that Jaweh and Xenu are really the same thing too.
Just a general comment on Dawkins post:
The way I see it is that whether there is one God or many Gods (I assume thats what someone means when they say Pegan) is on equal footing as far as proof goes; and I think thats what Dawkins thinks also (otherwise he doesn’t know what he is talking about). There are arguments for many Gods just as there are arguments for one God (no proof or prediction from either one of the camps). One God should be “dissed” just as much as many otherwise you are abandoning a large part of humanity. And I think (hope) Dawkins won’t get into that.
“I should like to point out that Odin had some respectable traits. He once traded an eye for wisdom.”
I always imagined that the first thing Odin realized, with his new-found wisdom, was how moronic it was to give up his eye.
Jonathan Badger writes: As cute as it is, in practice this argument isn’t that effective, at least among the the sorts of people that I’ve tried it on — the liberal theists making up the bulk of my family and friends.
I think it is in the nature of arguments against or in favor of the existence of God (or gods) that they only convince people who already agree with the conclusion.
“NAMBLA” ?
Please explain …..
Of course that’s not Odin…Odin wouldn’t be shouting “ODIN!”.
It’s also not Thor. Thor doesn’t exist (neither does Odin).
That’s clearly just a brawny barbarous Viking dude, a true believer exercising his faith.
“NAMBLA” ?
Please explain …..
Posted by: G. Tingey
–
I’d… rather not. Let’s just say it’s an opinion more reviled than atheism…
Bah – I’ll sound like a particular agnostic I know if I quibble the the point of incoherance. NAMLBA stands for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. They think sex with kids is natural and good. They’re perfectly serious and, to be honest, they do have some small degree of reasoning on their side. On the other hand they have some bloody spectacular reasoning opposing their views, so I think it’s a case of prejudice fairly well justified.
They have a right to say what they think, and I have a right to call them mentally ill.
S.T.: Your explanation is spot-on, but…
WE’RE STILL NUMBER TWO!!! :-)
Memo to self: do not accept debate offers from Thor.
A dime is worth more than a nickel.
(That’s US-centric coinage.)
Given the amorality some theists habitually attribute to atheists, they probably conflate atheists with NAMBLA by now.
Unfortunately, the side opposing NAMBLA and similar, less well-known groups seems to be hindered by an absolute inability to approach the debate logically, resulting in some fairly absurd arguments…as well as stunning idiocy like the 106th Congress’ Resolution 107 (short version: “We’ve already made up our minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts!”) condemning Rind et al, 1998 for not coming to the predetermined “correct” conclusion.
*sits back, waits for Hoody or someone similarly rational to accuse self of “pedophilia”* [I believe that there are good arguments against legalizing sex between adults and children (though I would support lowering the age of consent by a few years–were my daughter unable to make an intelligent and informed decision about sex by the age of 14 or 15 I would consider myself a failure as a parent); I simply have yet to hear many.]
Sadly, its not a matter of making an “intelligent and informed” choice. Read something on it recently on the Live Science site (I think..). Basically, teens tend to exagerate consequences. In other words, if they worried about venerial diseases at all, they would be worried about getting all of them at once, not the odds of getting just AIDS or even the far more common herpes simplex B. The problem is, their *social* interactions and need to form complex connections, of which sex is percieved as one way to form such bonds, outways their thought of consequence by a *huge* margin. Or to put it another way, if they thought sex wasn’t a big deal at all, they might be able to deal with it, or even avoid it. Since its socially charged and has all sorts of social associations with it, including with who they currently have a crush on, the need to conform to the group or act on other similar social impulses will overpower their logic. Sadly, this seems to still be the case with some people well into their 20s, which is what *really* makes arbitrary standards useless. You need to make safe sex and the use of protection a “part” of the system of social interaction, not something that degrades, interferes with or complicates it. So long as the later is true, the sentence, “But so and so did it already.”, and similar things, will always overpower ones like, “But, I might catch X from someone or get pregnant.”
Remembering what I actually thought about sex around 14-15 (what I may have said, usually facetiously, was another matter entirely), reading what Skatje’s written about it in the past year-odd, and talking to other intelligent people, the potential is certainly there.
Oh my god! He killed Kearney! (You bastard!)
This Brit honestly thought that NAMBLA was something the South Park writers made up. You’re telling me it’s real?!
Athorists were responsible for all the crimes of the 20th century, proving that athorism is morally bankrupt and thorism is the only morally tenable belief.
I find this an odinous claim.
Which leaves me to wonder if such a claim contradicts or supports thorism. Perhaps I should head Thor when he said “sometimes an ax to grind is just an ax to grind”.
I find this an odinous claim.
Which leaves me to wonder if such a claim contradicts or supports thorism. Perhaps I should head Thor when he said “sometimes an ax to grind is just an ax to grind”.
“head” – heed
“head” – heed
Touché–well played, Torbjörn!
Still, if anyone should know about the subject, I’d expect it to be björnen av Tor, after all…
The North American Marlon Brando Look-alike Association? No, they made that up.
The Man-Boy Love Association? Yeah, that’s real.
Scott Simmons: I’ve wondered that too!
MarkG: Many of the silly (and criminal) organizations and actitivies that appear on post season 2 or so South Park are real. It is supposed to be a satire show. (Notice how it wasn’t exactly all that to begin with. Some of it was just fooked up weirdness.)
Azkyroth,
I don’t know where you live but if you are living in the US, each state sets its own age of consent laws. Although most of them seem to average out to about 16 years, the limits range anywhere from 14 to 18. The number of states with age limits below 16 has decreased during the last few decades. No state has an age limit higher than 18 years, a result of the lowering of the voting age and concommitant rights of emancipation.
Also, most states include exceptions to account for sex between minors whose ages fall within a certain range.
Many people continue to support age of consent laws in order to provide legal recourse for those minors who have been coerced into sex or otherwise seduced by older persons and those in positions of authority. Sometimes the criminal laws are the only protection at-risk kids have. (A lifetime ago I represented juveniles in court proceedings and they needed all the help the laws could give them. Sad stuff.)
Thought this might be appropriate – the Daily Show celebrates 10 years of NAMBLA references :-)