No.

\Millions of people share Osama bin Laden’s ideas. Should they be killed?\

This is a strange question. It implies that our role is to dispense justice, killing people who ought to be killed. That’s wrong. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/4×9/crime_and_punishment/ .

We want to maximize some measure of goodness in the world. And we want to survive. We have the right to kill people who want to kill us and are able to kill us. Osama was able. Most of these millions are not.

In 30 years, if technology has developed so that a small group of people can easily and cheaply kill many millions of people far away, then we probably will have to either die, or kill off entire societies if they reliably generate thousands of such extremists. But today, we have the luxury of not needing to do that, so we can tell ourselves we are above that.

\Christians, not just Osama bin Laden, might be included among those whose dangerous ideas require their elimination. Do you think Christians should be killed? If you answer “No,” how do we know this is a truthful answer?\

No, but I get the feeling you’re not going to believe me anyway. If I were living in 16th century Spain, and were forced to attend mass, and forced to mouth platitudes I didn’t believe, made to renounce reason at the whim of the Catholic hierarchy, and threatened with torture and death for questioning any of the above, then I would say, Yes, the Christian ruling class should be killed, like any other undeserving, self-interested, tyrannical ruling class. But I’m living in the 21st century, and Christians are now capable of tolerating other religions and separating Church and State.

\Wouldn’t it be justified to kill some people to save humanity?\

Of course. Society already agrees it’s justified to kill some people because they killed some other people, or because they defied military orders, both of which are much less important reasons than saving humanity.
It’s even considered justified to put people in jail for 20 years, which is not very different from killing them, for selling other people recreational drugs.

But you’re not talking about saving humanity. You’re talking about a temporary political/cultural struggle, in which humans will continue on pretty much the same as before no matter which side wins.

\Doesn’t considering people to be nothing but matter with no immortal souls make it easier to justify killing them?\

No; it makes it harder to justify killing them. If someone is immortal, why not kill them? What’s the difference between living 70 years on Earth and 70 trillion years in Heaven, vs. 30 years on Earth and 69,999,999,999,960 years in Heaven? Believing in immortality makes it easier to justify killing people, like the Spanish conquistadors who baptized native infants and then bashed their brains out, to save their immortal souls.

The comment about \nothing but matter\ is strange. Do you think that atheists don’t believe in love, joy, or friendship? Do you think that atheists believe in the spiritual? To us, there is nothing but matter, and matter encompasses all these things. The world is just as wonderful to us as it is to you; and all these wonderful things take place with matter. \Matter\ for us is just the same as \matter plus spirit\ is to you. So using the phrase \nothing but matter\ shows a gross, basic misunderstanding of atheism.

\Life would be so much easier in a “unified” community where everyone marched to the beat of the same drum – but is that what life is all about?\

It is the religious who want to have a unified community, not the atheists. Atheists don’t have anything in common with each other, except the absence of a few beliefs. Adherents to a religion do.

\If there were a God, would he be obligated to prove his existence to people who mocked and despised him?\

If there were a God, it wouldn’t much matter what we thought he was obligated to do.

\If you should come to believe in God, what changes would this require in your life?\

There may be a God. This wouldn’t require any changes in my life unless I knew something about this God.

\What would it be like to live forever and never die? \

Depends on the life. It could be very nice. But if you aren’t changing, then you’re not alive; and if you are changing, eventually you’re someone else. No person alive now can live forever in any meaningful sense.

\If atheism is correct, are all of our deepest aspirations for meaning, love, significance, purpose, and hope futile and vain?\

No. Again, the question is strange: How can anyone who needs to posit a God to dictate meaning, significance, and purpose, claim to believe in meaning, significance, or purpose? It is precisely because such a person cannot believe life as we know it has meaning, significance, or purpose, that they must invent a God to define such things by fiat.

“Pascal says that people disbelieve in God not because of their reason, but because of their passions.”

Pascal said that not because of his reason, but because of his passions.

“Who decided that your belief in the non-existence of God should be the default position?”

If there is a default position, it would be not having thought about the matter, or not having a belief one way or the other.

\Who laid down the law that atheists don’t have to prove their position “because you don’t have to prove a negative”?\

This one is scary. So you believe that atheists should be required to prove their position? What happens if they don’t?

\If I am accused of a crime, and I present a solid alibi, isn’t that proving a negative (“I did not commit the crime”)?\

The implication of your using this example, is that you believe that people should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

\What scientific evidence do you have to prove God does not exist – not inferences or arguments, but evidence?\

It is a waste of time to try to prove God does not exist, since, as I noted above, we can do nothing with the information unless we can know something about this God. Therefore the only worthwhile activity is either trying to divine the nature of God, or evaluate the claims of particular beliefs about God.

I feel like you have studied Harris’ book closely, but resisted it at every step, considering every idea only long enough to come up with some surface-level objection to it, always careful to shield yourself from being contaminated with a true understanding of it.

The general pattern to your questions is one I see in many religious people. You feel that you lack something; and you make up a God to try to fill this void. The existence of other people who don’t feel this void terrifies you. Admitting that they don’t would suggest the problem was with you. So you try and try to insist that they must feel this void, they must have this empty, amoral, purposeless attitude towards life. And because this is what you’re really thinking about, all the fears and problems that you personally have show up in your arguments as things you accuse atheists of having. The objections that religious people make against atheism tell us more about religious people than they do about atheists.

If life whispers to you and asks you to change your mind, will you listen?

5) and 11) are fairly redundant statements. There is no need for you to reiterate yourself.

Point 5 (“Both groups aspired / aspire to total domination”) and point 11 (“Both movements pursued / are pursuing their false philosophies to the farthest possible extremes.”) are not completely redundant. Pt. 5 refers to society as a whole (political domination) whereas pt. 11 refers to that, yes, but also to personal practices, where in their private lives people will go to the farthest extremes in search of new thrills and new lows of degredation and self abasement.

“we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed.”
[[citation needed]]

I don’t think a citation is needed here, I am expressing my own feeling in a blog.

In my personal opinion, mentioning this pretty much assure that you’re preaching to the choir. This statement is not a prophetic as you think it is. Like a horoscope, anyone can successfully predict danger and destruction from any source, provided they never mention dates, times, and places.

In the brief space of a blog, I am stating my own views without going into a lot of argumentation and documentation. Some of my few readers may agree with me, some may not. Also, dates, times, and places are not necessary. If a young person is starting out overeating, smoking heavily, and not exercising, I can tell them that if they keep on that path they are headed for trouble without specifying date, time, or place. Also, such a warning is no sign of brilliant prophetic insight, but it is valid nevertheless. I point to what I think are obvious trends without thinking this qualifies me as a prophet.

“relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.” The National Socialist’s assertion of the superiority of blond/blue eyed German nationals, and the inferiority of Jews and other groups, had little to do with Darwinian evoltion. The NAZI’s co-opted a few or Darwin’s ideas to make superficial rationalizations of their social philosophies. National Socialism was a “Eugenics” movement, and suffers the same fallacies. A full understanding of the evolutionary theory would easily show how fallacious ideas of eugenic were.

The Nazis did not need to go into or agree with all of the details of Darwinism to claim that people were essentially animals and nothing more, and that because we were animals examples from nature (the strong preying on the weak) were therefore justifications for and even bases for human behaviour. “The anaimals do it, we are animals, so it is right for us to do it too.” The Nazis used this logic to justify violence, the gays (and not only the gays) use it to justify sexual freedom without restraint.

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is biological, not psychological. I.e. it is not a “disease” or a “psychosis” and does not need to be “cured.” You can use the theory of evolution to back up this claim, and unlike eugenics, use it sucessfully, though it is not necessary.
I fail to see the similarity between the murderous eugenics of the National Socialists, and the simple concept that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon not a disease.

My points did not deal with the origins of homosexuality. I did not draw a connection between Nazi eugenics and the belief that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon. My point was only that both point to the animal origins of man to justify their acts.

You would do well to address the latter argument in specific terms, not make the hasty and presumptuous generalization that gay rights and and national socialism were “both Darwinian.” This is a comparison that quickly breaks down when you examine the positions of each groups in real detail.

I didn’t say gay rights was Darwinian (see above about using our animal origins as justification for actions). Also, in my book I have a lot of information about the NON-DARWINIAN origins of National Socialism as well – but the animal origins and nature of man was central to their theory, and to gay rights arguments that “Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it is right for us.” Weikart’s book Hitler’s Ethic has some usfeul information here, but it is very limited in scope.

“rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others. ”
So has every other political movement in history. This paragraph conceals both appeals to authority, and appeals to popularity. Just because something is legal or illegal, does not make it morally right or wrong. Likewise, just because a political view is popular and shared by the majority, does not make it correct. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.

If EVERY (?) other group has done this, that doesn’t make it right. I don’t see my point as an appeal to authority (which authority?) or to popularity. To me it is a simple statement of fact. True, if something is legal or illegal does not make it inherently right or wrong, and a majority view is not always correct. I don’t say the majority of voters in California were for Proposition 8 that therefore it was right. I am saying that the Nazis and the gay activists both used legal and political and chicanery to impose their views by force on others. A judge’s arbitrary overturning of the popular will was defiance of democratic procedure.

But, you say “The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.” True, we are a republic, but the republoic does include some democratic principles and procedures (such as voting). Also, who says gay “marriage” is a “right”? I and many others say it is not a right. Is this “right” of your written in the stars? Or given to you in some holy book? How is it that this “right” of gay “marriage” is unheard of in the entire history of theworld?

“accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”
“…….Rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.”
The fact that a person behaves in a hypocritical, or otherwise objectionable manner, does not have any effect on the “truth value” of their position.

That’s true, but when they accuse others of what they do themselves, and rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence, as did the Nazis, and as do they gay activists, that does reveal something. And, this is not the case of a single hypocrite making statements that are still true in spite of his faults. It is much more than that, a consistent policy followed by many who want to silence opposition and take power for themselves.

A murderer on death row is still capable of arguing against murder. Whereas the best behaved, most unselfish people can still be wrong.

I agree with that – but devious, corrupt, violent, and dishonest people have less chance of being right, especially when it comes to broad social policies over time, than do people who are well behaved (meaning considerate of others among other things) and unselfish.

National socialist policies were incorrect, destructive, and immoral……..because they were incorrect, destructive, and immoral, not because of individual actions. Truth is rarely defined by the actions of those who claim to believe in it.

Bu Jesus said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Actions do not exactly define truth, but they do say a lot about those who want rights for themselves even as they want to silence others.

“………seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.”
But what, exactly, is a “historical” value? Christianity hasn’t existed forever, neither has it always had the same beliefs and values, nor has it ever existed as anything close to a homogeneous group. You seem to imply all Christians everywhere have always valued, and will always value the same things.

The idea that homosexuality is not only normal but to be glorified and established as a basic part of society is new in the history of the world. True, Christianity was at one time also new. So, “newness” does not automatically equal wrongness or badness – but homosexuality claims to be normal, natural, healthy, based on nature. History does not show that in any society at any time. Christianity, on the other hand, claims to be a new revelation of previously unknown mysteries – very different.

In any case, isn’t this exactly the same kind of thing Christianity seeks to accomplish, to “radically transform” he human race? I.e. save them from their “sins?”
This is supposed to be done on an individual basis, voluntarily, without coercion by the courts or by the government, and certainly not by silencing people who want to think differently. Historical instances of “Christian” oppression were completely against the teachings of Christ and never sought or practiced by many Christians.

If you’re accusing homosexuals and Nazis of being overly ambitious, join the club…
I am stating my opinions in a blog, I expect the world to become worse and worse as the bible says, and I expect the gays to become more and more powerful, even to the point of persecuting Christians. I have no vision of a Christian takeover of society. I see the church as too weak for that and getting weaker all of the time.

Civilization isn’t static, new values and beliefs are constantly being introduced, and older ones abandoned or forgotten. All values, including Christian values, were “unheard of in history” at one time. This was true in Christ’s time, it was true in the middle ages, and it’s just as true today. Social change is constant and inevitable. you can either adapt to it, or not.

I agree, change is inevitable, but it ends at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, with an eternity in heaven or hell. And the bible teaches that unclean and sexually immoral people, whether hetero- or homosexual, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Also, I am not trying to prevent change. I am trying to point to some changes as being wrong, harmful, and destructive.

Appealing to tradition doesn’t tell you whether or not a value or belief is actually useful or relevant to society. For example in many countries in the middle east there’s a traditional belief that sex is always painful for women.
True. But if we rely on the bible for our values and beliefs, then we have a sure and reliable guide. And, is homosexuality USEFUL for society? Beneficial? If so, how?

But, if the antiquity of a belief is no indication, then how can we determine if a belief/value is actually beneficial or useful? What other criteria are there?
The criteria are those provided by the bible. That is my belief and I am glad to discuss it. Do I have the right to express it freely? Or do I have to keep it to myself because it makes some people “uncomfortable,” while your side expresses your views loudly and freely?

“…..Recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.”
This accusation holds very little water.

Does it hold little water? Both the Nazis and the gays want to indoctrinate children with their values – irrespective of and contrary to the will of the parents. Do you think parents have the right to decide how their children should be raised? No, you don’t, and neither did Hitler. If some parents want to teach their children that being homsoexual is normal, natural, and healthy I know of no Christian that would try to prevent them fromso doing.

If by “indoctrination,” you mean, teaching kids against intolerance, bullying, and harassment of gay classmates, then that would be strangely Christian of them.
We all know the homosexual indoctrination program goes far beyond that. Disguising your goals to appeal moderate is one of your tricks, and Hitler’s too.

If by “indoctrination” you mean preventing kids from being taught “traditional christian values” then they are morally right to do so. It is not the purpose of a public school in a nation ruled by law, to teach ANYONE’S values! Their purpose is to teach objectivity, not religious opinions which only hold for particular members of that religion.
It is not the purpose ofa public school to teach ANYONE’S values – except yours. You argue for neutrality only to nullify the opposition, then you are free to teach your values and silence those who disagreewith you. More and more people are starting to see through such tricks. And you talk about objectivity! “Homosexuality is normal” is “objective” and “homosexuality is abnormal” “subjective.”

It is my own personal opinion, that the fact that many people do not comprehend the difference between religious dogma/theology, and evidenced fact, is a reflection of just how much christian indoctrination exists in the public school system at present.
If people see that homosexuality is morally wrong, and reject the “fact” that homosexuality is normal, we can be thankful for this healthy and constructive influence and be sorry it is disappearing so rapidly.

You speak of religious dogma – what about secular dogma? That there is noGod; that we came from animals; that there is no heaven or hell, no final accountability after death – all secular dogma, totally void of empirical foundation.

“Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.”
“Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”I find such “ad hominem” character assignations to be a sign of profound weakness in a someone’s thesis.

I agree that ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness, but statements of fact are not ad hominem attacks. Hitler harped on the injustices of the Versailles Treaty to win sympathy and justify his actions. The gay rights activists point to their grievances as justification for theirextreme agenda. Hitler accused the Jews of being evil and cruel and wanting to rule the world when that described himself perfectly. The gays accuse others of being full of hate and wanting to oppress otherswhen it is they who are full of hate, hatred of God and of his truth and of people who disagree with them and it is they who want to oppress others and take away their rights.

In fact THIS ENTIRE PIECE is one long ad hominem character assassination. Gays = NAZI’s…… therefore they cannot be trusted and their arguments do not require consideration.
I don’t think the piece is character assassination at all. I showed specific, exact, and definite parallels between the Nazis and thegay rights activists (recognizing of course that there are differences, no one says they are identical). And, I predict that our national mincing down the gay road will contribute, with other factors, to America’s declineand fall.

As to their arguments not requiring consideration, I have considered your arguments and responded to them carefully. I notice you did not respond to all of my points – for example, that both Naziism and homosexual activism are hostile to Christianity, and have many values contrary to the bible. Also, I have a book manuscript of some length – not a short blog – in which I present in detail arguments claiming that homosexuality is compatible with being a Christian, and do my best to refute them.

“we need to be on the lookout for extremist movements that will destroy our democracy and bring catastrophe on our nation. I also agree that there is a real, present and growing danger, one that needs to be mightily opposed.”
[[citation needed]]
In my personal opinion, mentioning this pretty much assure that you’re preaching to the choir. This statement is not a prophetic as you think it is. Like a horoscope, anyone can successfully predict danger and destruction from any source, provided they never mention dates, times, and places.

“relied / rely on a Darwinian understanding of human origins to justify their beliefs.”

The National Socialist’s assertion of the superiority of blond/blue eyed German nationals, and the inferiority of Jews and other groups, had little to do with Darwinian evoltion. The NAZI’s co-opted a few or Darwin’s ideas to make superficial rationalizations of their social philosophies. National Socialism was a “Eugenics” movement, and suffers the same fallacies. A full understanding of the evolutionary theory would easily show how fallacious ideas of eugenic were.

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is biological, not psychological. I.e. it is not a “disease” or a “psychosis” and does not need to be “cured.” You can use the theory of evolution to back up this claim, and unlike eugenics, use it sucessfully, though it is not necessary.

I fail to see the similarity between the murderous eugenics of the National Socialists, and the simple concept that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon not a disease.

You would do well to address the latter argument in specific terms, not make the hasty and presumptuous generalization that gay rights and and national socialism were “both Darwinian.” This is a comparison that quickly breaks down when you examine the positions of each groups in real detail.

“rely on legal chicanery to frustrate the will of the majority and impose their views on others. ”

So has every other political movement in history. This paragraph conceals both appeals to authority, and appeals to popularity. Just because something is legal or illegal, does not make it morally right or wrong. Likewise, just because a political view is popular and shared by the majority, does not make it correct. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy, and there are very good reasons why we do not and should not put the basic rights of a small minority up to a popular vote.

“accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”

“…….Rely on hysterical accusations, propaganda, and even violence to silence and demonize the opposition.

The fact that a person behaves in a hypocritical, or otherwise objectionable manner, does not have any effect on the “truth value” of their position.

A murderer on death row is still capable of arguing against murder. Whereas the best behaved, most unselfish people can still be wrong.

National socialist policies were incorrect, destructive, and immoral……..because they were incorrect, destructive, and immoral, not because of individual actions. Truth is rarely defined by the actions of those who claim to believe in it.

“………seek to radically transform the human race, and introduce new values in a manner unheard of in all of human history.”

But what, exactly, is a “historical” value? Christianity hasn’t existed forever, neither has it always had the same beliefs and values, nor has it ever existed as anything close to a homogeneous group. You seem to imply all Christians everywhere have always valued, and will always value the same things. In any case, isn’t this exactly the same kind of thing Christianity seeks to accomplish, to “radically transform” he human race? I.e. save them from their “sins?” If you’re accusing homosexuals and Nazis of being overly ambitious, join the club…

Civilization isn’t static, new values and beliefs are constantly being introduced, and older ones abandoned or forgotten. All values, including Christian values, were “unheard of in history” at one time. This was true in Christ’s time, it was true in the middle ages, and it’s just as true today. Social change is constant and inevitable. you can either adapt to it, or not.

Appealing to tradition doesn’t tell you whether or not a value or belief is actually useful or relevant to society. For example in many countries in the middle east there’s a traditional belief that sex is always painful for women.

But, if the antiquity of a belief is no indication, then how can we determine if a belief/value is actually beneficial or useful? What other criteria are there?

“…..Recognize the importance of indoctrinating the children with their values.”

This accusation holds very little water.

If by “indoctrination,” you mean, teaching kids against intolerance, bullying, and harassment of gay classmates, then that would be strangely Christian of them.

If by “indoctrination” you mean preventing kids from being taught “traditional christian values” then they are morally right to do so. It is not the purpose of a public school in a nation ruled by law, to teach ANYONE’S values! Their purpose is to teach objectivity, not religious opinions which only hold for particular members of that religion.

It is my own personal opinion, that the fact that many people do not comprehend the difference between religious dogma/theology, and evidenced fact, is a reflection of just how much christian indoctrination exists in the public school system at present.

“Both movements played / play the victim card to win sympathy, disarm the opposition, and justify their own extremism.”
“Both groups accused / accuse others of doing what they did / do themselves.”

I find such “ad hominem” character assignations to be a sign of profound weakness in a someone’s thesis.

In fact THIS ENTIRE PIECE is one long ad hominem character assassination. Gays = NAZI’s…… therefore they cannot be trusted and their arguments do not require consideration.