On the thread about The God Delusion, Brother of Jerry argued that Christians had done Bad Thing historically, and not only that, they cause pain in their families in the here and now.

Hmm. One of his arguments was that ignorant Christians destroyed the great library at Alexandria. This is an atheist urban legend, of which I hear entirely too many for a group that supposedly prides itself on being informed and rational. I don't want to get into how complex this subject is (and consequently how simplistic this explanation). I will just clip something short from Wiki:

"Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire in the Alexandrian War, in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in AD 270 – 275; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391; and the Muslim conquest in AD 642 or thereafter."

I wish atheists would read a book -- or three -- before they spout off with such absurd and unwarranted authority about history.

BoJ also cited, I believe, a Texas school board as an example of the harm Christians do. Again -- hmm. I would be more impressed if a former head of a prominent national atheist organization had not let slip that she voted for George W. Bush. I guess she missed reading The Republican War on Science. I can't really get worked up about the harm that supposedly ONLY Christians do as long as atheists are willing to support anti-science, anti-intellectual administrations. I also have to admit I find the posts from Christians Tired of Being Misrepresented more thoughtful, educated, and civilized than some of the anti-religion rants here.

The other argument was that Christians have hurtful family interactions, and this was right off the Prohibitionists' favorite playlist. And as a matter of fact, alcoholics can be destructive to family security and happiness. But I don't see this as a good reason to outlaw liquor or even a reason to stop drinking. It is only a good reason not to be an alcoholic or not to be part of a destructive family pattern around substance abuse. I would have to say the same about religion. As not all religious families are dysfunctional, and as some non-believing families are, I would have to look beyond religion as an explanation for family pain -- just as I would look beyond outlawing liquor as a cure-all for troubled families -- no matter how much evidence is presented that alcohol is behind spouse abuse, poverty, child abuse, etc.

like

Besides, he missed my point. I was talking about the atheist big four painting all Christians with the same brush. I don't have a problem with going after Pat Robertson for some of the idiot things he says. I have done that myself, but to put Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Assisi, Desmond Tutu and others in the same class is laughable and ignorant. The big four do this and you are blindly falling for whatever they say. I have said it once and I will say it again, "Learn to read before you reply to posts."At least criticize what I actually said instead of going off on something else. BTW, janeelliot is right about the Library of Alexandra. There were any number of reasons it was burned besides religion and it was burned several times. Just saying.Thanks for supporting my point about Dawkins and company.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 08:24PM by bona dea.

I know that this isn't really the point of your post but follow my logic here. If after Caesar burned the ships in the harbor there was still a library for Aurelian to sack than it wasn't Caesar who destroyed the library. He may have caused some significant damage but the library kept on trucking. The same could be said of Aurelian who was said to have taken large portions to Constantinople. Since Patriarch Theophilus decided that the library posed a significant danger to his war against Mithraism, it couldn't have been completely done in by Aurelian. Finally we come to the widely circulated rumor about the Muslim Conquest, which was reinforced by Saladin. To borrow Bona's favorite phrase most scholars and historians doubt the veracity of the destruction at the time of the Muslim Conquest. Which brings us back to Patriarch Theophilus. So who really killed the library for good? Christians.

I would love to see a simple question put to the more prominent public atheists: "Would you, if you could, prohibit Religion?"

It's a simple question and I imagine most if not all would say no. It has been tried with varying success. Russia tried but failed, and China did and has largely succeeded. No one in the West really cares what China does to her Buddhists or Falun Gong practitioners. But that's an ongoing experiment. We'll see if an Authority can expunge religion from the human heart.

Such questions *have* been asked of various prominent atheists, and you're right, their answer is almost always no, they would not prohibit it if they could.

There are a few bad seeds I could imagine saying yes. And I don't support those guys, obviously.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 08:59PM by doubtisavirtue.

You have more faith in the prominent public atheists than I do, Human. After all, they criticize the moderate and mainstream believers for "providing cover" for the extremists by continuing to believe. The New Atheists, if that is who you mean by "prominent public atheists" don't recognize a continuum or middle ground. So, I have some significant doubts about their exercise of tolerance if they had the power to ban religion.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After all, they
> criticize the moderate and mainstream believers
> for "providing cover" for the extremists by
> continuing to believe.

Good point, but it's even worse than that. Some of them criticize even their fellow atheists for not being militant enough, for "providing cover" for believers. Alain de Botton gets this all the time.

In a symposium I linked to here a few weeks ago, Jerry Coyne kept piping up, when some sundry scientific or philosophical point was raised, that it's no good 'cause it might give cover for theists. The group was rather incredulous. More than one had to point out to him that whether theists found the point congenial to their beliefs or not is really beside the point. The point is solely whether the proposition, argument, theory, etc is valid or not, is true or not, reflects reality or not. He really seemed to be wringing his hands obsessively over what theists might make of this or that.

So, ya...a few are a bit unhinged...

It was rebuilt after Caesar. The last time that didn't happen, but there was plenty of destruction and loss each time it was burned. There were political reasons as well as religious reasons for the destruction and it may or may not have been deliberate. In Caesar's case, it was a result of war. Lots of things are destroyed when there is civil unrest or war. It is inevitable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 08:52PM by bona dea.

That may be correct, but can something really be destroyed when it exists after its destruction. When did it stop being there? The answer is when the Christians deliberately killed it for good.

I hear *plenty* of atheists point out that the Library of Alexandria story is an urban legend.


Also, it seems to me to be a strange form of argument that something has to be the exclusive source of harm in order to be harmful. The argument isn't that only Christians do bad things. The argument is that much of the harm done in the name of Christianity can be traced back to the ideas of the belief system itself.


I think it's important to point out that obviously, "atheism" and "rationality" are not the same thing, that's something I would agree with you on. Just being an "atheist" does not make someone a rational person. I believe that on the singular question of the subject of God, atheism is the most reasonable answer given the available data, and thus it is irrational, when confronted with that data, to believe in God. However, that does NOT excuse someone from being a complete crazy in other areas just because they call themselves an "atheist", that would be absurd.


As to bona dea saying that the so-called "Big Four" paint all believers with the same brush, I just don't see it. Hitchens maybe, Dawkins probably, but both Harris and Dennett go to great lengths NOT to do that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 09:00PM by doubtisavirtue.

That's true. I remember a programme on Radio 4 interviewing an atheist who said he became an atheist because he heard a disembodied voice say: "There is no God."

Nicene Fathers, II, II

The Serapeum housed part of the Great Library, but it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, the passage by Socrates makes no clear reference to a library or its contents, only to religious objects. An earlier text by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus indicates that the library was destroyed in the time of Julius Caesar; whatever books might earlier have been housed at the Serapeum were no longer there in the last decade of the 4th century (Historia 22, 16, 12-13). The pagan author Eunapius of Sardis witnessed the demolition, and though he detested Christians, and was a scholar, his account of the Serapeum's destruction makes no mention of any library. When Orosius discusses the destruction of the Great Library at the time of Caesar in the sixth book of his History against the Pagans, he writes:


So perished that marvelous monument of the literary activity of our ancestors, who had gathered together so many great works of brilliant geniuses. In regard to this, however true it may be that in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough—yet it seems fairer to suppose that other collections had later been formed to rival the ancient love of literature, and not that there had once been another library which had books separate from the four hundred thousand volumes mentioned, and for that reason had escaped destruction.

—Paulus Orosius, vi.15.32

Thus Orosius laments the pillaging of libraries within temples in 'his own time' by 'his own men' and compares it to the destruction of the Great Library destroyed at the time of Julius Caesar. He is certainly referring to the plundering of pagan temples during his lifetime, but this presumably did not include the library of Alexandria, which he assumes was destroyed in Caesar's time. While he admits that the accusations of plundering books are “true enough,” he then suggests that the books in question were not copies of those that had been housed at the Great Library, but rather new books "to rival the ancient love of literature." Orosius does not say where temples' books were taken, whether to Constantinople or to local monastic libraries or elsewhere, and he does not say that the books were destroyed.

My point is that I oppose all political support for anti-science agendas -- and I don't care if that support comes from believers or non-believers. I think policies that suppress or twist scientific information are wrong and destructive -- period. And not all believers support those politics and not all non-believers oppose them.

I also always liked the 13th Article of Faith, although it isn't really Mormon but from Paul. I think it is perhaps the nicest thing in Mormonism. One of the reasons I left is that the 13th Article of Faith is not taken seriously.

If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

But I do take it seriously, and for me that means I like thoughtful, educated people who take thoughful, informed positions -- whether those people are believers or non-believers is not as important as the positions they take. Therefore, I would rather talk to a Christian (with whom I might disagree about many things) who supports gay rights than an atheist (who believes as I do about god and the after life) who doesn't support gay rights -- for whatever reason.

Now that I can get behind completely.

Let's add anti history agendas to your list. I am really tired of one sides and simplistic views of history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 09:51PM by bona dea.