Scholarly Hypatia Was Murdered by a Degenerate Clique of Christian Fundamentalists

[Red Terror]

Genesis chapter 1 was never intended as a scientific account - light is created on Sunday and the sun and stars only on Wednesday. An interesting philosophic idea but scientifically untenable.

Just a thought about Hypatia - her murder is a total disgrace to Christianity, but there have been plenty of examples of mob violence being justified by socialism, I'm very sorry to say.

Thanks for citing evidence for your claim. I'm thoroughly convinced and won over to your side (sarcasm intended).

[Pompey Bum]

Thank you for that explanation, Drkshadow. 1153 still seems mighty small for the study to have much power (and there are also questions of selection bias, etc.), but I am willing to assume a diversity of views among atheists in any case. I also find the distinction between atheists and anti-theists helpful. That distinction was implicitly drawn in the conclusion to Tim O'Niell's blog post on the historicity of Agora, for which you gave us a link. It helped me put aside Red Terror's either-or thinking. This was O'Niell's final paragraph:

"And, as usual, bigots and anti-theistic zealots will ignore the evidence, the sources and rational analysis and believe Hollywood's appeal to their prejudices. It makes you wonder who the real enemies of reason actually are."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...d-strikes.html

As a matter of anecdotal experience (sample size = 1), the vast majority of non-believers I've met have been atheist intellectuals who were simply following the light of reason. We respected each other (I am a Christian), learned from each other, and had fun together. I have known anti-theistic intellectuals, too. Some I have respected, most I have disprected. But their anti-theism was not the direct cause of my disrespect.

In the looking glass world of the Internet I find the situation reversed. Atheist intellectuals like O'Niell and you (I am assuming you are an atheist) are the exception. Uneducated anti-theists--an odd mix of atheist wannabes and angry anti-intellectuals--are the rule. The wannabes don't really understand how reason works so they usually cut and paste other people's ideas rather than express their own (who has ears, hear). They seem to attack theists because they imagine it's just what atheists are supposed to do. My impression is that many of them have been overawed by atheist websites and/or cyber bullies. They want to join (or create) the pile on for fear the pile on will happened to them. So the bullied become wannabe bullies. It's an old story.

I find anti-intellectual anti-theists more common. They appear to be people who feel put down about their lack of education so they try to use scraps of science and atheism to show "who the smart ones really are." Their anti-theistic attacks are motivated by anger and class rage. They are more likely to learn their out of their intolerance than the wannabes.

For all that, theists are worse. Theistic anti-atheism is, of course, the norm. Members of different (and sometimes the same) religious groups regularly attack one another. And "scientific" theists are the worst of the all. Their ideology is necessary catholic (small c) and orthodox (small o), so their rage against atheism (or even ecumenism) is positively Medieval. At least atheists (usually) learn to live with their differences.

Conclusion: the only one in the universe with any sense is Mona Amon. Yes you, Mona. Congratulations. It must get lonely.

[JCamilo]

I'll have to give that site a look. Categorizing atheists by the single stance of their relationship to religion or the All Mighty is definitely one way to go about it. But we don't usually categorize theists in that matter. I tend to think of the branches of atheist thought in terms of philosophical lineage. You have the French school that traces it's roots to Voltaire, Diderot, d'Holbach and other Enlightenment era atheists. Then you have the German school with Marx, Engels, Freud, Feuerebach, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. The British school of utilitarians such as Bentham, Godwin, and Mill. The Russians or communists which include Lenin, Stalin, Bakunin, Trotsky (Mao, Guevara). There's the Positivists starting with Comte and Durkheim. And the New Atheists represented by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. These are each sort of families with a series of common thoughts among them and well established positions on materialism, atomism, utilitarianism, positivism, rationalism, empiricism, liberalism, etc.

I know Voltaire is not among your usual readings (even if he was a biased classicist and a big Racine defender), but he was not an atheist. In fact, he was pretty much anti-atheist, only giving some of them credit, because the tendency that out-spoken atheists be part of enlightment circles he had contact and that they were, according to him, tolerant while among religious people you would find intolerance. An Atheist would be a bit better than a Jesuit, but Voltaire considered an absurd the non-existense of God and the absence of cause (or reason) in the creation of the universe and thus all natural working. With all hyper-reason speech atributed to Voltaire, he considered that it was impossible to explain everything, in fact necessary to exist mysteries and that God was among those. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him was an attack on atheism after all.

[Drkshadow03]

I'll have to give that site a look. Categorizing atheists by the single stance of their relationship to religion or the All Mighty is definitely one way to go about it. But we don't usually categorize theists in that matter. I tend to think of the branches of atheist thought in terms of philosophical lineage. You have the French school that traces it's roots to Voltaire, Diderot, d'Holbach and other Enlightenment era atheists. Then you have the German school with Marx, Engels, Freud, Feuerebach, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. The British school of utilitarians such as Bentham, Godwin, and Mill. The Russians or communists which include Lenin, Stalin, Bakunin, Trotsky (Mao, Guevara). There's the Positivists starting with Comte and Durkheim. And the New Atheists represented by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. These are each sort of families with a series of common thoughts among them and well established positions on materialism, atomism, utilitarianism, positivism, rationalism, empiricism, liberalism, etc.

Personally, I'm a little loathe to describe a group of people as "Intellectual Atheists" too since we don't describe any other group that way and it draws a natural contrast to it's opposite. Are theists then anti-intellectual?

I think there is more than one way to approach the issue. As you suggest, another approach can be to trace different types or strands of atheism through intellectual history. It is a matter of different approaches, which will produce slightly different results.

I don't find "Intellectual Atheist" that prejudicial as a term simply because the goal in this particular study seems to be to contrast different types of atheists with each other rather than with theists. The idea is not that they are smarter, but rather their atheism is grounded in their intellectual pursuits and that is how they express it. Many of them probably really enjoy Philosophy of Science and Religion and likely see their atheism as grounded in their study and interest in philosophy.

Thank you for that explanation, Drkshadow. 1153 still seems mighty small for the study to have much power (and there are also questions of selection bias, etc.), but I am willing to assume a diversity of views among atheists in any case. I also find the distinction between atheists and anti-theists helpful. That distinction was implicitly drawn in the conclusion to Tim O'Niell's blog post on the historicity of Agora, for which you gave us a link. It helped me put aside Red Terror's either-or thinking. This was O'Niell's final paragraph:

"And, as usual, bigots and anti-theistic zealots will ignore the evidence, the sources and rational analysis and believe Hollywood's appeal to their prejudices. It makes you wonder who the real enemies of reason actually are."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...d-strikes.html

As a matter of anecdotal experience (sample size = 1), the vast majority of non-believers I've met have been atheist intellectuals who were simply following the light of reason. We respected each other (I am a Christian), learned from each other, and had fun together. I have known anti-theistic intellectuals, too. Some I have respected, most I have disprected. But their anti-theism was not the direct cause of my disrespect.

In the looking glass world of the Internet I find the situation reversed. Atheist intellectuals like O'Niell and you (I am assuming you are an atheist) are the exception. Uneducated anti-theists--an odd mix of atheist wannabes and angry anti-intellectuals--are the rule. The wannabes don't really understand how reason works so they usually cut and paste other people's ideas rather than express their own (who has ears, hear). They seem to attack theists because they imagine it's just what atheists are supposed to do. My impression is that many of them have been overawed by atheist websites and/or cyber bullies. They want to join (or create) the pile on for fear the pile on will happened to them. So the bullied become wannabe bullies. It's an old story.

I find anti-intellectual anti-theists more common. They appear to be people who feel put down about their lack of education so they try to use scraps of science and atheism to show "who the smart ones really are." Their anti-theistic attacks are motivated by anger and class rage. They are more likely to learn their out of their intolerance than the wannabes.

For all that, theists are worse. Theistic anti-atheism is, of course, the norm. Members of different (and sometimes the same) religious groups regularly attack one another. And "scientific" theists are the worst of the all. Their ideology is necessary catholic (small c) and orthodox (small o), so their rage against atheism (or even ecumenism) is positively Medieval. At least atheists (usually) learn to live with their differences.

Conclusion: the only one in the universe with any sense is Mona Amon. Yes you, Mona. Congratulations. It must get lonely.

I agree the difference between atheist and anti-theist is useful. I think most people are reacting more to the latter. Not sure I agree all anti-theist are anti-intellectual, more like biased and close-minded. Do you have any evidence that they lack education? I'm also not really sure what you mean by "scientific" theists. Like Newton?

[Pompey Bum]

I agree the difference between atheist and anti-theist is useful. I think most people are reacting more to the latter. Not sure I agree all anti-theist are anti-intellectual, more like biased and close-minded. Do you have any evidence that they lack education?

No, as I said, I have known intellectual anti-theists and even respected a few. The only anti-theists I have known to be uneducated are those (invariably online) who have boasted as much.

I'm also not really sure what you mean by "scientific" theists. Like Newton?

No, I was talking about modern theistic "fringe science." When one's religion and science are equated, all differing religions must go. In my experience it ends up being a mask for intolerance.

[Jackson Richardson]

Thanks for citing evidence for your claim. I'm thoroughly convinced and won over to your side (sarcasm intended).

I was making exactly the same point as I thought you were - the first chapter of Genesis is inconsistent with any scientific understanding of the world. I was not making any other "claim".

[Drkshadow03]

No, as I said, I have known intellectual anti-theists and even respected a few. The only anti-theists I have known to be uneducated are those (invariably online) who have boasted as much.

Ah, my mistake.

[mona amon]

Thanks, Pompey!

[Red Terror]

I was making exactly the same point as I thought you were - the first chapter of Genesis is inconsistent with any scientific understanding of the world. I was not making any other "claim".

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the 2nd part of your statement.

In any case, remember what the writer William James once said, "We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause."

Letter to E.L. Godkin (24 December 1895)

[Pompey Bum]

Genesis chapter 1 was never intended as a scientific account - light is created on Sunday and the sun and stars only on Wednesday. An interesting philosophic idea but scientifically untenable.

Just a thought about Hypatia - her murder is a total disgrace to Christianity, but there have been plenty of examples of mob violence being justified by socialism, I'm very sorry to say.

Thanks for citing evidence for your claim. I'm thoroughly convinced and won over to your side (sarcasm intended).

I was making exactly the same point as I thought you were - the first chapter of Genesis is inconsistent with any scientific understanding of the world. I was not making any other "claim".

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the 2nd part of your statement.

In any case, remember what the writer William James once said, "We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause."

Letter to E.L. Godkin (24 December 1895)

Good point, Red Terror. If socialists had murdered Hypatia it would have been okay.

Heh heh heh. Right, Red Terror, but that is from a description of THE FILM. My contention is that the film was ahistorical in suggesting that very thing. But I will gladly stand corrected if you can provide evidence that the above story is true, or that Hypatia of Alexandria ever advanced the idea of heliocentrism. If you can't, I call on your integrity to admit that you have given undue credence to the historicity of this movie.

In the meantime, happy hunting!

Still nothin', huh?

[YesNo]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the 2nd part of your statement.

In any case, remember what the writer William James once said, "We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one is the choice of the cause."

Letter to E.L. Godkin (24 December 1895)

What is you view of the Khmer Rouge (Communist Party of Kampuchea) acts of genocide? Here is a documentary, but there are shorter ones on YouTube you could check out as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiSgciK16k

[Red Terror]

You are a spammer, who likes to put words into people's mouths. Sweet trolling ...

Good point, Red Terror. If socialists had murdered Hypatia it would have been okay.



Still nothin', huh?

[Red Terror]

What is you view of the Khmer Rouge (Communist Party of Kampuchea) acts of genocide? Here is a documentary, but there are shorter ones on YouTube you could check out as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiSgciK16k

Their political programme can hardly be described as Marxist. They were more akin to ancient Sparta with a youthful military caste than Marxism-Leninism. I like the way how you totally ignored the massive U.S. bombing campaign which drove people into the cities to escape the horror of the countryside. Just because people call themselves communist does not mean that they are. Oh and did you know that the U.S. supported Pol Pot and his government when the Vietnamese government invaded and overthrew his regime? Food for thought.

[YesNo]

Their political programme can hardly be described as Marxist. They were more akin to ancient Sparta with a youthful military caste than Marxism-Leninism. I like the way how you totally ignored the massive U.S. bombing campaign which drove people into the cities to escape the horror of the countryside. Just because people call themselves communist does not mean that they are. Oh and did you know that the U.S. supported Pol Pot and his government when the Vietnamese government invaded and overthrew his regime? Food for thought.

I agree with you about the problems with the US and Vietnam and Pol Pot. I am old enough to remember those days and I am not trying to justify them.

Let me make this more hypothetical. Suppose the Khmer Rouge were communist by your way of thinking, would you approve of the actions taken? Do those means justify a communist end?

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks, Pompey!

Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention, Mona.