Finals week reprieve--Pulitzer prize winning journalist attacks atheism.

Chris Hedges is writing a book called, "I don't believe in atheists." Which is going to be similar to his book about the Christian Right, attacking the movement and the ideology of fundamental Christianity.

So, after having debated Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, Chris Hedges, a Christian himself, is now afraid of Atheism. As an Atheist myself, this is alarming. As thought there wasn't enough ire for atheists already. Speaking for myself and not all atheists, I desire nothing more than to be left alone to believe whatever I want without fear.

For awhile it was scary to be an atheist, but thanks to the "Four Horsemen" Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, that has changed and it was tolerable to be an atheist. Chris Hedges book may reverse that. Goody.

Here are some excerpts from a 3 min talking point:

Atheists are incredibly similar to fundamentalists they attack.

They utilize the same methods as the Religious Right: sloganeering, jingoism, characteristic of the hollowness of the Religious Right

They have created a secular religion, like the Religious right, and put people on a moral plane, allowing for an US vs THEM.

They believe in violence as a way to solve problems.

They are as Utopian as Religious Right, and believe in a collective moral human progress.

It doesn't matter what you believe about the apocalypse or that science will create the perfect world, both of those are delusion.

Thus he starts his assault on atheism because...

atheism is dangerous, intolerant, and frightening.
***

I saw the debate he had with Sam Harris, and he didn't do well. He made a lot of strong points, very few of which were positions held by Sam Harris who remained consistent the whole way through. I only know that because I study philosophy. The audience, not so much, and cheered and clapped when Chris Hedges made a random point (indefensible by anyone) and attributed it to Sam Harris. In Logic they call that A straw man Fallacy where you invent your opponents position as something really easy to beat up and then beat it up. A fallacy is a flaw in logic that is simultaneously psychologically suggestive, and the audience bought it. It makes me sad that even though he used all these fallacies against Sam Harris, the crowd, or most of it (the loudest part) bought it, even though Sam had to repeat, "That is not my argument/ that is not my position."

I can only imagine how Christopher Hitchens and Chris Hedges debated, as Hitchens is much more aggressive and analytical, and he has that British delivery.

Anyway, I have a lot to say/think because it is something I care about, it's my life, and I study religion and science both because it's important, I think. Even more so now because religion has power to influence laws and science and bilogy and people and their bodies and sex and all kinds of things it shouldn't have any influence over.

While a part of me is thinking, "Great. All these Christians are going to go out and buy this new book about how Atheism is eViL, and I will have to watch what I say, and what I do."

But another part of me remebers watching "the four horsemen" talking about religion and science and all manner of things and they said that eventually atheism will get attacked by some powerful guy, and not to be afriad of it because it is the natural progression of ideas, that they rattle the cage enough to get a response. And with that new response comes new argument and new areas to shine light upon. So it's a good thing, says them. A sign of progress.

I can't help but feel that this will only divide science and religion/ us and them even more, and Atheism, which is incredibly hated around the world, gets more hate.

To all those theists out there, I don't hate you, and I hope you don't hate me either.
***

It's like everyone is part of a club that I can't be a part of. The fairy tale salvation club. Where the members continue to further their fairy tales and influence medicine and science.

Off the top of my head: Stem Cell Research is a blanket term for the many research methods of stem cells, be they embryonic, or umbilical or placenta.

Here is the issue. Some of the cells in our body do not grow back, namely nerve cells. You are born with one set that grows your whole life, where as skin cells keep growing and dying as long as you live. If you damage a nerve cell, or sever it, it is unrepairable. If you break your neck or back and sever the nerves there you lose function to your body, paralysis. Everything is connected to a nerve cell in some way, any one of which can become damaged and you can lose feeling and function to that one area, be it part of the face, arm or body.

If only there was a way to regrow a damaged nerve cell...

That's where stem cells come in. Stem cells are the cells in a developing human embryo. Remember in 7th grade where the sperm and the egg join, and then divided a bunch of times? Those are stem cells, cells that all other cells stem from: teeth, brain, muscles, skin, all of it.

Now, the issue arises when a human embryo is used/killed to get stem cells that can be grown into any cell needed. That is controversial because one can argue that you are taking one life to save another. One could also argue that life begins at conception, and that is murder.

I could argue with you about those points, and we could get no where. So I have a much simpler solution.

Stem Cells can be gathered from umbilical cords and placenta. Umbilical cords are removed and incinerated after every birth. The placenta is likewise removed and destroyed. I say, if the human embryo is controversial, how about the umbilical cord? Or the placenta? Or the birthing blood? Stem cells are in those things, and we just throw them away after every birth.

***IF***
it is possible to gather stem cells from these things and repair damaged nerves and lost limbs, and eyes and organs and whatever cell you want, wouldn't you want to do SOME (any) research? Wouldn't you want to at least ALLOW scientists to see if it can be used to help us or not?

Also, as a side note, we incinerate embryos all the time. After abortions certainly, but more than that sometimes an embryo adheres to the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus. And it will break the fallopian tube and kill the baby and the mommy. Those have to be removed and incinerated.

And my position is, since it is being killed anyway (by God no less, if you believe that sort of thing, adhering it to the fallopian tube rather than the uterine wall) why not utilize it to cure someone with muscular dystrophy, or paralysis, or 3rd degree burns over most of their body (rather than use a pig's skin, or a motorist who is a donor--we use their parts when they die without much thought.)

It just seems like there is SOME WAY to do SOME research on ANY bit of stem cells, right? Rather than label the whole thing an ABOMINATION, or murder or whatever else, I mean. Surely, there is some way. Be reasonable.