Uncommon Knowledge: Andrew Klavan

It is so sad, a man without a soul. It is very apparent he does have a god. The god being his belief in logic and self worth. So so Sad!

A man (Permalink)that is well educated and has observed throughout the course of his life the potential for suffering and happiness. I am sure that he finds those things in the items he possesses. I am sure he surrounds himself with people that only agree with him all the time. For he needs in the worst way to convince others he is correct all the time. As for the ones that he can not sway, he just goes on and on till he drives them away. Although he would not admit it. He still feels empty inside when he has his possessions, friends and family around him. Yes empty!

It is ego that will not let him believe in something that he can not see, touch, hear or feel. So so Sad!

Yes it is sad, he has a empty pass, and nothing to find comfort in what is to come (after death).

He has obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) about this so bad that he must try to convince others not to believe in God. So so Sad!

His OCD also will not let him deal with others expressing their belief in God. Like I said earlier he can not allow others to believe in something he doesn't.
That is why he got so outraged at Andrew Klavan finding God. His obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), Drives him on this because someone that didn't believe in a God (like him) Andrew now does believe in a God. That upsets him so much! So so Sad!

It is OK that you do not believe in God. It is also OK that you express that you don't believe in God. It is OK that Andrew Klavan does now believe in God. It is also OK that he wants to talk about it on an interview.

What is not OK is that you are so obsessed with it. The fact that you can not let others express their belief in a God without getting so upset over it.


Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is treatable. I suggest you seek help!
Please!

God loves you!
Even though you don't even acknowledge Gods existence.
May peace be with you!

First of all I agree with everything Klavan says about political correctness which is why I decided to watch the video. I wasn't looking to be pissed off. Indeed I do agree with about half of what he says in this video.

Of course athiests have a worldview. But that worldview has to do with things that they beleive in, not things that they do not beleive in (a god). Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin are both athiests and they both have a philosophy. Would you say that Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin both follow athiest philosophy? I would have trouble wrapping my head around that one. It seems to me their worldviews are a bit different. This is because their lack of beleif in god does not guide the principles the DO beleive in.

When I was talking of boxes I was making the point that christians in many ways define themselves by their relgigious beleifs. In doing so they assume that athiest also define themselves in term of their religious beleifs. This is not only wrong it is completely nonsensical. Why on earth would I spend time fretting over something I don't beleive in when I could focus on things I do beleive in. This is the point I was making. If christians want to define themselves as christians that is fine but I am under no obligation to define myself as an athiest and Im not going to regaurdless of whether or not that makes other people uncomfortable or confused.

Klavan says that without relgion human beings are just a bunch of "meat puppets". He says that without god everything life is basically pornographic, not just sex. The reason he beleives that this is true is that he is working backwards from his own beleifs. He sees no beauty in the world outside of religion so he assumes that this applies to other people. This represents such extreme narcissism. It also contradictory to the vast range of experience outside of relggious experience. How would he explain the work of Carl Sagan and Lennon who have created work celebrating the physical and emotional beauty observed in the world?

I consider the potential for suffereing and happiness because those types of things are important to me and I have observed throughout the course of my life that they are equally important to other people. There are many other things to base moral beleifs on other than relgion. Personal experience, historical results, philosophy, logic. I don't see why this is so radical but many people seem to think it is and you are clearly one of them. Fine, more power to you. Just don't assume everybody feels, thinks and experiences the world the same way you do.

Huh. Seems to me that belief doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. Do you believe the moon came from the earth? Do you believe that there really is such a thing as the concept we know as the "black hole"?

Belief is belief. Belief in a God is just one such belief. Rejection of a belief is also based in belief. You reject belief in God because you believe there is no God. That, my friend, is a belief.

What do you mean there is no such thing as an athiest philosophy? Are you telling me that it is impossible for an atheist to have a worldview?

An atheist philosophy would be a philosophy that doesn't include theology, or a belief in some sort of deity. It's not that hard, really.

Everybody lives in a box. You live in a box where there can be no God.

Is Martin Luther in a box with the Pope? Are Jews in a box with Christians? Are Muslims in a box with Christians and Jews? Are Buddhists in a box with Christians and Jews and Muslims?

If they are, then it is perfectly reasonable for someone to say that you are in a box with other atheists. If they aren't, then ... what is all this talk of boxes? Who is this "We" that evaluates claims based on logic, reason "and the potential for suffering or happiness"?

And when you're done with that question about boxes, ask yourself this:

What compels you to consider potential for suffering or happiness? Do you BELIEVE that this is important?

It always bothers me when people jump from one extreme ideology to another. You used to embrace leftist dogma without question now you accept conservative dogma without question. Congratulatios, Try thinking for yourself. Also for the last time, ATHIEM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. This is the stupidest thing I have ever hear and yet it gets repeated over and over again. Athiesm is the rejection of a belief (There is a god). YOu don't have to accept any proposition to be an athiest. There is no such thing as athiest philosophy. Christians and many other religious people live in a box. The want to everybody else to get in the box with them. Athiests don't want to get into the box. SO christians say okay your in the box with Stalin and Mao. We are not in a box. We evaluate claims based on logic, reason and the potential for suffering or happiness.

I agree. Authors like these come out with works that are just under the radar enough so they can say what they want in interviews without being challenged. He can go on as long as he wants about how ignorant he thinks Dawkins and Hitchens are, but these men have devoted their lives to challenging their own views and when they disagree with someone they don't snicker and "preach to the choir." They do the only sensible thing: debate and SHOW others why they are wrong. It's nice to hear different views if they actually have something to back it up. This guy isn't explaining his views, he's just an opinionated novelist.

LOL. I love it.

Do two people alone in a room constitute a preacher and a choir? Peter Robinson has been conducting this same interview for over a decade now. He and Andrew Klavan spend the entire conversation taking aim at oversimplified and nameless targets, identifying them in vague terms like "Hollywood" and "Liberal", ascribing to them characteristics devoid of any redeeming value. It's easy to imagine defeating the bogeyman when he is nothing more than an absent bully well beyond earshot of your exclusive playground.

This author claims as a fact that the Marquis deSade is the only honest athiest philosophy available? This is both a logical fallacy and an attempt to inflame those who don't share his faith. He then goes on to equate some lude behavior he witnessed to atheism, as both the obscene sexual act and atheism are "without interna experience". I think one would have to travel far and wide to see a more dishonest and insulting portrayal...

The last segment seems to be missing from the audio. Other than that, the interview was terrific.

One of the most honest conversation about faith and western civilisation I have ever heard. Thank you immensly