Atheists Split Over Message

[Sapphire Blue]

Atheists Split Over Message
Associated Press

Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

(snip)

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.


Continued @ http://www.beliefnet.com/story/215/story_21519_1.html

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Surely there's nobody like that at DU!

:evilgrin:

--p!

[TahitiNut]

107. Well, it seems there are antitheists masquerading as atheists everywhere.

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

2. Splitters!

:rofl:

[smirkymonkey]

74. If you want to join the People's Front of Atheism, you have to

REALLY hate the Christians!

Fundamentalism, be it Christian, Republican, Islamic, Jewish or Atheist is always a sign of mental illness, imho.

For the record, I am agnostic and don't force it on anybody. However, I am not a saint and I admit that I am very judgemental when it comes to fundamentalism. I see it as a threat to human life and democracy.

[ComerPerro]

3. whats wrong with atheists "evangelizing"?

[orpupilofnature57]

8. Their against Evangelicals.

[ComerPerro]

13. right. And if people can force their "faith" on others, why can't atheists openly deny

the existance of a god?

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Who's forcing and who's openly denying? Knowing and Believing are

obscured by Anyone with an Agenda ,Anyone living their life will allow their opposites to do the same.What got us in to Iraq? Pseudo Science and facts or Quoting the old testament, being the new makes no provisions for murder of any kind or for any reason.

[ComerPerro]

105. guess what, pal, You can't pick and choose from the Bible

either its all literal truth, or its all crap

[orpupilofnature57]

111. Over simplifying is a form of closing your mind , work on it ,Pal

And last I knew I can pick and choose anything I want ,benefits of a DEMOCRACY.

[ComerPerro]

113. you can't pick and choose from a text supposedly written by God

"Gee, God was right on this, and everyone should follow it. But this part, nah, God was way wrong. I can ignore it"

[Sapphire Blue]

114. The Bible is considered to be the 'inspired word of God'. Pat Robertson says that HE is inspired...

... by the 'word of God' (in fact, God speaks to him, thus he speaks for God. :sarcasm: ); if the Bible were written today, the 'Book of Robertson' might well be in there. Enough said.

[ComerPerro]

118. so then why do I always see people say that exact thing about anti-Gay Christians

[Sapphire Blue]

119. That they are inspired by 'the word of God'?

Perhaps because they pick & choose what they can find in the Bible to support their own bigotry.

A Bible written today might also contain the books of 'Fred Phelps', 'James Dobson', 'Jim Wallis', 'Dr. William Barber', and 'Dr. Martin Luther King', among others. I'd skip over the books of Phelps & Dobson & choose the books of Wallis, Barber, and King.

[orpupilofnature57]

123. Pat Robertson , is a Fraud!!

[orpupilofnature57]

122. Men wrote it ,I beleive what they say .

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. This Greg Epstein Sounds Spot On.

I agree with him that those atheist fundamentalists are as much a stain on their movement as the christian fundamentalists are to theirs.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Sounds pretty religious to me, theres a Jihad , a knowing of what needs to be done,

a need to attack contrary Ideals , like I said sounds like Fundies to me.

[Eric J in MN]

52. Is advocating for the Democratic Party also a "Jihad"? NT

NT

[orpupilofnature57]

101. Yes and I'm a soldier !!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/03_hard.html

[bryant69]

6. This belongs in the religion forum

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[varkam]

7. Not this shit again.

I'm so tired of the "atheist fundamentalist" moniker, mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and less so because I've pointed out why that is the case to no apparent effect. Frankly, anyone who is offended by the claim that religion is harmful needs to be offended because this is the 21st century - the dark ages passed long ago.

[WindRavenX]

9. ...

:thumbsup:

[papau]

44. I wonder if there is a logical reason why your explanations have no effect - perhaps

your explanations ignore what others might call obvious evidence to the contrary - or is the jihad not open to self examination?

[varkam]

65. Perhaps because people for whom the explanation is intended

Are insistent on painting atheism with the same brush as a fundamentalist religion and will refuse have any sort of reasonable discussion on the matter. Good luck with your jihad.

edited to add: Interestingly enough, the original meaning of the word jihad (that is, before it became equivalent to holy war) was really non-violent confrontation in the form of intellectual argument.

[papau]

89. That is interesting - would that it was still the meaning - confrontation seems

inappropiate unless one is "looking for a fight" in situations where the topic of conversation is not confrontational to those listening.

[varkam]

99. Any sort of disagreement can be construed as confrontation.

What we tend to do in R/T is argue, though that doesn't mean we're arguing the way some people might construe the word. Confrontation is just a meeting of differing ideas with both sides hoping to find the best answer.

[papau]

106. Again true - but there are degrees of "harshness" and degrees of mutual respect - since

I have paid less attention to the forum the "niceness" level - while still often somewhat low - has appeared to on average rise.

The obvious conclusion, if one has a big enough head to assume that you affect everything you touch in a major way, is that I was not a calming influence (DON'T tell BMUS - she doesn't need another I told you so score at my expense!). :-)

No matter, I concluded long ago that my getting down and dirty and refusing no fight (because right, truth and my beliefs are correct, of course) was not a positive to R/T - which is why I try to only jump in when these topics are posted outside of R/T - occasionally still posting there of course, but usually a "my two cents" post rather than trying to educate. Besides I don't have the energy to both fight Medicare, get my grandkids raised "my way", and have "confrontations" in R/T!

[bananas]

80. LOL - This is one of the funniest threads I've read. nt

[varkam]

100. I don't understand what's funny about it

But I'm glad to hear that I made you happy, bananas.

[genie_weenie]

96. Huzzah!

:applause:

[skepticscott]

10. Just another lame attempt

to try to paint atheism with the same brush as religion. But the people who try to argue that what they call "fundamentalist atheism" is anything near as bad as fundamentalist religion are intellectually bankrupt, to put it mildly.

If Christian fundamentalists had their way in this country…I mean REALLY had their way, with no Constitution, no secular courts, no organizations championing freedom of religion and separation of church and state to get in their way... what would things be like? Here are just a few examples:

-Daily religious instruction, prayer and Bible study would be required in all schools.
-Church attendance would be mandatory.
-Only Christians would be allowed to serve in elected office or as judges.
-All laws and all science education would have to conform with the Bible and meet the
approval of religious leaders.
-Artificial contraception would be illegal.
-Divorce would be illegal.
-Blasphemy would be illegal.
-Working on the Sabbath would be illegal (except for football and NASCAR).
-Abortion would be illegal and punishable by death.
-Known homosexuals and atheists would be imprisoned or killed. Homosexual activity
would be illegal and punishable by death.
-Extramarital sex would be illegal and punishable by death.

And that’s just a sampling….

I barely have to ask the question of what things would be like in the Middle East if Islamic fundamentalists had their way, completely, because we’ve already seen it, or something close to it, in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

On the other hand what would be the worst-case scenario if these so-called “fundamentalist atheists” had their way about everything? And which world would you rather live in?

[orpupilofnature57]

12. Give me Liberty to do either or neither.

No matter how hot under the intellectual collar you Beliefs make you.

[papau]

50. Well said :-)

:-)

[varkam]

16. Spooky

On the other hand what would be the worst-case scenario if these so-called “fundamentalist atheists” had their way about everything? And which world would you rather live in?

I have a funny feeling that question is intended as rhetorical. I have another funny feeling that some people will not take it as such.

[Dr.Phool]

25. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

97. Oh, no you didn't!

:rofl:

[riderinthestorm]

11. "Old" atheism is on the verge of "explosive growth"?

and "new" atheism threatens "old" atheism?

:crazy: Sometimes you just can't make this shit up.

Uhm, Mr. Epstein, newsflash: ALL atheists, without qualification, are reviled in the US or didn't you read that MN study? You just sound jealous of Dawkins' and Harris' success - I'm thinking you wish you had been the one to begin making cultural waves instead of lecturing from the safety of a major university.

[robinlynne]

14. pppppppppppppppppppppppplease.

[Orsino]

15. A schism!

Invented by Epstein, apparently.

[Lars39]

17. But who will get the building?

;-)

[Jonathan50]

18. There are strong atheists and weak atheists..

The strong atheist says: I believe there is no God.

The weak atheist says: I do not believe in God.

The difference is subtle but there: The strong atheist position is one of positive belief while the weak atheist position is one of lack of belief.

A case could be made that strong atheism is a form of religion.

I'm a weak atheist myself.

[varkam]

20. Make it.

A case could be made that strong atheism is a form of religion.

[Jonathan50]

26. Believing that there is no God is every bit as irrational as believing there is a God

There is no logical basis for either belief.

The existence or lack of existence of a God is unprovable.

Believing there is no God is every bit as much a statement of faith as believing there is a God.

[morgan2]

39. do you believe there is no purple dinosaur hiding behind the moon?

theres your religion, because you believe it.. You can't prove it wrong so you're entire self is defined by you denying the existence of this dinosaur.

[Jonathan50]

57. An interesting read on the possible nature of "God".

_The Last Question_

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

It's a short read and the theological implications do not show up until the last paragraph.

[varkam]

68. There is a large logical basis for believing that the JCL god does not exist

Problem of evil. Euthyphro dilemma. Scientific refutation of claims made within the bible. I could go on, but I'm sure that you get the picture.

True, one cannot prove it either way - if one could, then we would know for certainty whether or not god exists. Since that's not the case, we're all agnostic whether or not we care to admit it in addition to whatever beliefs we happen to hold.

I cannot prove that my cereal will not kill me tomorrow should I eat it, but I do have good reason to submit that it will not based upon evidence. Since I cannot prove it, does that make it my religion? Additionally, I cannot falsify the claim that there is a purple dinosaur hiding behind the moon (as another poster pointed out), so is that my religion? I cannot falsify that there is a small teapot orbiting between Mars and the Earth, but yet I strongly believe that is not the case - is that my religion?

Religion implies worship, holy texts, and metaphysical dogma. Whom (or what) do I worship? What are my holy texts? To what metaphysical dogma am I to subscribe as a strong atheist?

[TreasonousBastard]

93. Of course we can demonstrate the slim probablility...

of any particular God existing, and can come up with substantial proof that that some gods don't exist at all. It's not entirely by accident that no one worships Wotan any more.

But, all of this is based on definitions and identities of particular gods, not the concept of a god itself.

First, define the concept of "God" then proceed to debunk it.

That's a key problem with the whole atheism/theism debate-- both sides tend to argue in terms of the religions they are most familiar with.

But, play around with the related Buddhist and Hindu concepts of devas and Brahman and one resulting conclusion is that "gods" may or may not exist but are essentially irrelevant to our plane of existence. Or talk to a religious cosmologist who talks of a cosmic intelligence that is unrecognizable to us as any sort of God we can think of, but is the intelligence, or guiding force, behind the universe-- not quite Aristotle's Prime Mover, but he might think this way if he were alive today.

Very difficult to find a rational argument against those.

Transcendentalists, some pagans, Universalists, Spiritualits, Gnostics, and others often seen as a bit whacky, or heretical, are on to something-- a largely unidentifiable and undefinable "higher force" or plane that, unlike Buddhist belief, does affect us.

Higher dimensions and planes of existence cannot at this point be proven either way, but the possibility is generally accepted. It's difficult to argue that they can't exist. If "God" is living within these planes we can't experience, there is then no rational argument against God.

[varkam]

98. It's hard to be a strong atheist with respect to the multitude of different gods out there.

For instance, I can't be a strong atheist when it comes to most gods in history. I can, however be one when it comes to JudeoCrisLam because that god is defined and, as such, can reasonably be interpreted as non-existent.

But, play around with the related Buddhist and Hindu concepts of devas and Brahman and one resulting conclusion is that "gods" may or may not exist but are essentially irrelevant to our plane of existence. Or talk to a religious cosmologist who talks of a cosmic intelligence that is unrecognizable to us as any sort of God we can think of, but is the intelligence, or guiding force, behind the universe-- not quite Aristotle's Prime Mover, but he might think this way if he were alive today.

Very difficult to find a rational argument against those.

Transcendentalists, some pagans, Universalists, Spiritualits, Gnostics, and others often seen as a bit whacky, or heretical, are on to something-- a largely unidentifiable and undefinable "higher force" or plane that, unlike Buddhist belief, does affect us.

Higher dimensions and planes of existence cannot at this point be proven either way, but the possibility is generally accepted. It's difficult to argue that they can't exist. If "God" is living within these planes we can't experience, there is then no rational argument against God.

I've heard pretty groovy things, too - but they don't really matter in any sort of objective sense. That's more along the lines of spirituality, and I'm fine with that. Further, if god is something that doesn't really affect us and is unreachable by us then we really shouldn't give a damn one way or the other.

If it does affect us, then we should be able to observe that in some rigorous scientific method - so far I'm unaware of any evidence that's turned up to support the notion of a "higher plane of existence". It may be true, but tell some evidence comes along I will tend towards the weak atheist perspective.

[TreasonousBastard]

110. True that there is no objective...

demonstration of God, and that most of what believers consider demonstrations are internalized rationalizations. All those Biblical stories of flaming chariots, rising from the dead and God talking directly to people are interesting, but, apparently, no one's talked to God in over 2,000 years, so we can't help but wonder where he's been off to. Or if there's something fishy about the stories.

Realizing that is what drew me to the Quaker belief system, which realizes that God cannot be understood or defined, but can only be dealt with on our own limited level. The idea of "waiting upon God" at silent meeting is complex and much more than a group meditation or waiting for a "sign." It is realizing the depth of what we don't understand and seeing the small group of worshippers at the meeting as a microcosm of seekers. Our little group sits waiting for some inspiration that we can share that will advance our knowledge and understanding just a bit. We won't find "truth," but we will find ourselves a little closer each time. Perhaps it sounds a bit silly, but it works for it's purpose. Works a lot better than trying to find rational arguments about the Trinity or what sins send you to what part of Hell.

About those higher planes-- they do fit in well with our belief system. While it's generally agreed that higher dimensions do exist, the fact that we can't directly experience them means that we can't understand just what effect they do or don't have on us. So, yes, any "gods" hanging out there are largely irrelevant since we have no knowledge or control of them. But, they are only irrelevant in terms of our knowledge. Kind of like the butterfly effect.

[dysfunctional press]

87. bullshit.

so- not believing in someting that has absolutely no evidence to support it's existence is irrational...? since when?

does that same itrrationality apply to non-belief in other mythical creatures as well? like for instance- bigfoot, the tooth fairy, santa claus, werewolves and the loch ness monster?

if not, why not?

if so- then what have you been smoking?

[skids]

121. Depends on whether you "don't believe" or "believe not"

Shades of meaning. Also depends quite heavily on the definition of "god".

The logical basis for believing in a "greater consciousness" is induction from the tendency of consciousness to emerge in complex systems -- it is as ridiculous to believe that only the carbon based life on this planet with a critical mass of neurons (and hence nothing more powerful) can be a seat of consciousness as some of the authoritarian religious tripe such as "only humans have souls."

There is, however, as far as I have ever been exposed to no logical (from a non-introspective standpoint) basis for believing said theoretical phenomena would have any relevance to the variety of consciousness we personally experience, or visa versa, unless is is emergent from a similar complex system, at the very minimum sharing a good proportion of the same physics.

At any rate, as I've said before, the folks at "The Center For Inquiry" did no favors to anyone in choosing that name. Every time I hear that I think of Cardinal Ximinez and his plastic-coated dish-drying rack. An atheist can either be sensitive to the fact that people are not going to buy into the idea that they can do no possible harm by aggressively marketing of their ideas, an action which we have all seen can indeed be done in a harmful manner no matter what the ideas being marketed are, or they can continue to receive media coverage (and hilarious cartoon satire) like they have been. You decide which one gets that movement where it wants to go faster.

[Auggie]

22. A militant atheist says:

I do not believe in that bullshit.

[A HERETIC I AM]

28. What would you call someone who says....

"I KNOW all gods to be mythical constructs. There is no more veracity to the god of Abraham and Isaac than there is for the gods of the Roman and Greek pantheons. Belief has nothing to do with my position"

?

What category does such a person fall under?

[Jonathan50]

30. The term God ...

Is not limited to the God of Abraham..

It is a generic term for a creator, a supreme being, an intelligent designer.

I'm a strong atheist when it comes to the God of Abraham but a weak atheist toward a generic God.

[Marrah_G]

115. Thank you!

As a Wiccan I hate seeing "God" always related to the jewish/christian/muslim one.

[orpupilofnature57]

31. An existentialist .

[A HERETIC I AM]

40. I'll accept that moniker until a more suitable one comes along!

n/t

[varkam]

70. One who doesn't understand what the word knowledge means eom

[A HERETIC I AM]

86. Define then, Oh wise one, the word "Knowledge" so that all may understand.

Or, I can cut and paste with the best of them;

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge

knowl·edge Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
–adjective 10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
—Idiom11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.

# 7 pretty much describes why i would say what i said.

The concept of a God or gods simply is a mythical construct. There is no evidence to support the conclusion that "God" as an idea, thing or place is anything else.

Myth. Pure and simple.

[varkam]

95. Get snarky all you want to

Knowledge entails truth. That implies that you must have absolute certainty when it comes to the existence of god(s). I agree that there is no evidence to support the notion that any god(s) exist, and certainly not the JCL flavor. That, however, does not mean that I have absolute knowledge one way or the other about whether or not such god(s) exist. There is always the possibility that I could be mistaken.

For instance, I do not "know" that my father is not actually an undercover CIA agent. I believe very strongly that he is not, and I would tend to think that the very notion that he is one is at best silly and at worst psychotic. Nonetheless, I still have to admit that I do not know one way or the other.

My position is that god(s) is/are inherently unknowable - at least when it comes to a creator god. For a creator god to exist, it must exist entirely outside of the universe or else be subject to infinite regress. If there is a creator god, then that god is not a knowable god.

And you see, knowledge and belief are actually two separate lines of cognition. One can know something, and not believe it (which usually requires psychological mechanisms such as denial) but, more commonly, one can believe something and not know it. For instance I believe religion is one of the most destructive forces ever known to mankind, though I readily admit I could be mistaken in that there might be a more destructive force out there. In other words, I don't "know" that to be true.

Lastly, if you said that you "know" god(s) doesn't/do not exist, then you should be able to provide irrefutable proof to support that position on the order of 2 + 2 = 4, otherwise you're just playing fast and loose with the term "know". If such proof were available to either side then there would either be (a) no atheists or (b) no theists because it would be a matter of scientific fact whether or not there is a god.

[A HERETIC I AM]

104. Well, since i didn't say that i "know god(s) doesn't/do not exist" we are discussing a rather moot

point, aren't we?

I understand where you are coming from and if i was indeed snarky, well...it was entirely intentional. You, after all, declared that the person (a hypothetical one at that stage) lacked a proper grasp of a definition.

I stand my ground. My position does not deal with the question of existence per se. My position is that the concept, or if you prefer, notion of a God (The God of Abraham and Isaac) or gods (all the rest) is inherently mythical from the standpoint of their description in literature, both contemporary and ancient, coupled with the way in which i was personally brought up to think of them/him. Since I was raised in a Protestant home and attended church regularly from as early as i can remember until i started refusing (about 17 or so), i think i share many of the same experiences with many if not most "believers" of their perception of this notion.

Gods are mythical constructs. I know this is true. Therefore, aligning myself with the position that they are real or even possibly real would be intellectually dishonest. Bringing belief into the conversation does not do anything to further the point for me.

That was all i was trying to get at.

Cheers

[varkam]

108. I'm not sure I understand

I understand where you are coming from and if i was indeed snarky, well...it was entirely intentional. You, after all, declared that the person (a hypothetical one at that stage) lacked a proper grasp of a definition.

I am ignorant on many issues, and yet I am (usually) able to restrain my temper when someone points out the possibility that I might be mistaken. I meant no disrespect by what I said, so mine was entirely unintentional.

I stand my ground. My position does not deal with the question of existence per se. My position is that the concept, or if you prefer, notion of a God (The God of Abraham and Isaac) or gods (all the rest) is inherently mythical from the standpoint of their description in literature, both contemporary and ancient, coupled with the way in which i was personally brought up to think of them/him

And that's fine, but viewing god as a character in literature has exactly zero relevance to whether or not such an entity actually exists. If I'm understanding you, then you say that because of god's description in literature and because of the way you think about it, then that proves god does not exist? I don't follow.

[gatorboy]

63. Hey, at least you're keeping your options open.

It's like what Woody Allen said about Bisexuals. It doubles their chances for a date on Friday night. :P

[PassingFair]

19. Look! There's an "atheist fundamentalist" NOW! ----->

[varkam]

21. LOL!

I'm stealing that picture for future use :D

[orpupilofnature57]

33. Where is that?

[Warpy]

34. HAHAHAHA!

That's the only one they'll ever find, too.

[blondeatlast]

23. Because I like "My DU" better than bookmarking. nt

[Lars39]

24. lol.

Me,too. :D

[Zenlitened]

27. Meh. There's a backlsh underway, against years and years of heavy-handed religionism.

Some of the people pushing back are bound to seem a little harsh.

That's just how things go in a time of backlash.

:shrug:

[papau]

48. Will all the "harsh" idiots go outside - religious or atheist - "harsh" folks ... n/t

n/t

[Warpy]

32. Newly minted atheists are always a little too passionate.

They all feel that blinders have been taken off and most resent their religious upbringing and training, along with the time and money they feel they squandered on a lie.

Consider what other zealots there are out there, from new nonsmokers to religious converts. The behavior is understandable and temporary.

As for dragging it all down, it's a little premature to talk about an atheist movement. Most atheists are not joiners. It's hard to rally around a negative like a lack of belief. Most atheists want to be left alone with the dictates of their own consciences and personal ethics.

I do see a rise in secularism, but that will be led by believers who see a great threat in the efforts of a relatively few zealots who want to remake this whole country in the image of their own narrow views.

[orpupilofnature57]

36. Imbued people are a pain in the ass, no matter what the Vision.

[Bluebear]

42. Still, I've never seen an atheist go door-to-door or on a "mission" nt

[Warpy]

60. No, but I've seen them buttonhole people

at parties and family reunions. Not good.

[Marrah_G]

116. I think that is true with all types of new thought

The most zealous are always the new ones. Whether it be religion, activism, or political. By zealous I mean the ones unable to see anything but their cause. The slightest offense to it produces outrage and anger. The zealousness generally lessens in time.

[Buzz Clik]

35. The OP does illustrate an excellent point.

I was listening to Terry Gross interview Richard Dawkins on "Fresh Air". Dawkins is smart as hell and a good scientist. I agree with nearly everything he says about religion, but I couldn't help but wonder why he was so obsessed with banging the gong against religion. The answer is extremely obvious: without his crusade against religion, Richard Dawkins would be just another scientist toiling away on the subject matter he loves -- Terry Gross would not care one bit about his scientific opinions. Now, however, he's the poster boy for atheism and is guaranteed to draw a crowd to any discussion of evolution, creation, or religion.

Dawkins's mid-career was brilliant, but he hasn't published anything even resembling scientific discovery for over 15 years -- he's been riding the "I'm an Angry Atheist" pony for all that time. It's good work if you can get it.

My feeling is this: You're an atheist? Cool. You're a Christian/Muslim/whatever? Cool. Now, shut up.

[Jonathan50]

37. On the other hand..

Perhaps Dawkins genuinely believes in what he is doing.

I believe magical thinking of all sorts is harmful to society.

[Buzz Clik]

78. Yes, he's quite passionate in his beliefs. Errrr.... disbelief.

Magical thinking? I love it when the discussion gets snarky.

[blondeatlast]

46. Can I get an "amen?" (Sorry!) But I do agree with you up to the "shut up" part. nt

[chaska]

47. Sorry, but no...

"My feeling is this: You're an atheist? Cool. You're a Christian/Muslim/whatever? Cool. Now, shut up."

When you start inserting your (generic you) religious beliefs into my government, I have an obligation to assert myself to prevent you from doing that. This is a major reason for the new militancy of Atheism. Blame GWB.

[Buzz Clik]

79. I agree, but that isn't Dawkins line of discussion.

He goes after anyone who believes in religion and everyone who tolerates those beliefs. His discussions include the intrusion of religion into government but they don't stop there.

[Duppers]

84. YES! just what I was thinking too.

My 'militancy' has increased as a result of the religious right's (wrong's) interference into govt., science, education, action on global warming, etc.

I do not and cannot see them as harmless. Their influence and voting block is hurting us ALL.
Skepticscott, above, is right.

I will not apologize for my stance and most atheists I know agree with me, but their degree of 'militancy,' i.e. speaking out, depends more on their personality than anything else. Some folks are just quiet, some not.

[Buzz Clik]

85. Right, I agree. But it isn't the fact that they are religious that's the problem.

The problem is their activism and the desire to force their religion on everyone else.

There are plenty of religious people who agree with you and are becoming more active at trying to get their noisy, intrusive counterparts to shut the hell up.

[Duppers]

88. true that. nt

nt

[Eric J in MN]

51. He shouldn't "shut up."

People who don't believe in God have shut up for hundreds of years.

Consequently, more people would vote for a candidate who is gay or black or Jewish than for an atheist.

It's time for atheists to speak up.

[Madspirit]

61. "It's time for atheists to speak up."

Right on! Second generation atheist here. My father was a WWII hero and yes, there are atheists in foxholes. I hate religion. It is the single most destructive force on the planet.
Lee

[Buzz Clik]

81. Atheists have been speaking up for decades. And, in the right context, ...

... it's the proper thing to do. I quit chanting religious slogans ages ago -- the "under God" part of the pledge makes it all the more unsavory. I despise having people ask Jesus to bless my food before I eat it.

My "shut up" comment is Dawkins's unceasing harping about the naivete of even the agnostics (actually, he's more harsh about agnostics because he considers them a gutless variety of the religious. Gratefully, I'm a lapsed agnostic and not a target of his ire ;) ). I find it disingenuous to complain bitterly about things you don't believe in. How many people go on speaking tours bashing those who believe in Santa? Superstitions? Lucky charms? It's quite odd.

[edhopper]

59. Or it could be that Dawkins

has come to believe that religion and especially fundamentalist religion has become a very destructive force in the world. And that he is well qualified and in the right place to try to counter it with reason. Maybe he sees religious belief today trying to undo 300 years of scientific progress and it might be important to stand up to that.
Was Linus Pauling just trying to get PR when he worked on a nuclear test band?

[Buzz Clik]

82. Ugh. The comparison to Pauling is weak.

Dawkins has never claimed that religion is the exclusive or even dominant cause of war. He also acknowledges that wars and brainless violence would continue to exist in the absence of religion.

[morgan2]

38. you can't express your atheism without coming off as militant

its impossible. The very idea of believing religion is a myth is offensive, there isn't much that can be done about that. Some people just wanna shy away from that and not offend anyone.

[Bluebear]

41. "The very idea of believing religion is a myth is offensive"

According to whom?

[Hamlette]

58. it isn't BELIEVING religion is a myth that is offensive, it is saying it out loud as evidenced by

this whole thread.

As a third generation atheist I can tell you I keep it to myself (since college when we were free to talk without offending) because the mere mention of my "religious beliefs" causes people to treat me differently (less well) and to say things like I am incapable of doing anything good, I'm immoral, I'm going to hell, or the most offensive of all: that I should shut up about it.

I will when "you" do (wink).

[blondeatlast]

56. "Believing religion is a myth" isn't offensive

--expressing it MAY be. One can't express any form of belief/nonbelief in polite company without getting someone's dander up. That's why I was raised not to bring it up (as well as politics) among people I don't know well.

DU is a place where really smart people engage in conversation/debate. Here the subject isn't, nor should it be, a social taboo. The office party is another story.

[Marr]

66. I disagree. A Buddhist and a Christian can have a conversation without

any implied offense, even though each inherently dismisses the beliefs of the other. But I do agree that you take more heat in America for saying "I'm an atheist" than "I'm a Buddhist". I'm not sure why.

[JNelson6563]

43. Break the news you're an atheist

when a Christian zealot is carrying on and Voila! You are a fundy, militant atheist who fully deserves the hell that all loving bible-god has created.

:toast:

Julie

[papau]

45. Break the news your an atheist to a Christian liberal on DU and you get a "yawn" n/t

n/t

[Lars39]

53. But break the news you're an atheist to fundy family members...

and you are shunned,gossip fodder,yelled at,continually proselytized,etc.

[papau]

90. True - and in those situations I will be with your side in that battle. n/t

n/t

[varkam]

76. lol

Thanks for that.

[papau]

92. Glad I could provide a laugh :-) In the world of liberal Democratic Politics that is the best

and perhaps only good response to those that are trying to get in your face because of your beliefs - whatever they be or not be.

[Eric J in MN]

49. Atheists have tried to the quiet approach for hundreds of years.

The result is that we're the most despised group, compared with Jews, blacks, homosexuals, etc.

It's time for atheists to speak out.

[toddaa]

54. Greg Epstein is not a true Atheist(tm)

Greg Epstein is a hypocrite atheist who does not follow the teachings or our lord and savior, Richard Dawkins.

[varkam]

72. LOL!

Blasphemer! Sam Harris is the true messiah!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

103. LOL

[gatorboy]

55. Didn't Bush Sr. say he didn't consider atheists American citizens?

Now think about that for a moment.
A man that's president of the United States. Someone that should lead/treat the American people equally, is saying that millions of Americans, some of whom have even VOTED for him,that rely on his leadership and power, shouldn't be citizens. How can you NOT become militant when someone that was Vice President feels the need to say someone like that publicly?

Hell, I'm surprised the gay community hasn't become more militant. A gay Black Panther type group could turn some of that homophobic shit right the fuck around.

[Jonathan50]

62. Yep, GHW Bush did say that..

http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm

In 1987, at a news conference which I was covering for a national magazine, Vice President George H. W. Bush told me, in response to a question that I raised, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." Ever since then, many have asked where my proof is that Mr. Bush actually said that. On March 31, 2006, I received documents from the Bush Presidential Library that prove that Mr. Bush made those remarks.

[Marr]

64. Very interesting split. I see both sides, here, really. For instance,

I think Richard Dawkins has a point when he says that we can't afford to indulge these fantasies any longer, and shouldn't offer respect to any irrational belief just because someone happens to believe it. He seems to say we have a duty as rational beings to call bullshit by it's proper name, and he may be right. I certainly think we'd all be better off if fundamentalists (from Falwell to bin Laden) didn't hold such influence.

On the other hand, I think rational beings also have a duty to be civil and polite, and I can think of no greater insult than mocking someone's most deeply held beliefs.

[Jonathan50]

67. What if the person you are mocking...

Is a white separatist and that is their most deeply held belief?

[Marr]

71. Well, that's a good point.

I'd have to say that we have certain societal standards, and we marginalize things that violate those standards. White supermacist rhetoric certainly violates those standards, and most of us would feel comfortable mocking their views.

Richard Dawkins seems to believe that religion itself violates what *should be* our societal standard. So I suppose the question is whether or not a significant part of the population can be convinced of that. I'd say it's unlikely, personally.

[Jonathan50]

75. I grew up in the Jim Crow south.

And white supremacist rhetoric was the order of the day.

Societal standards change, and rather rapidly too.

[Marr]

77. Very true. And I suppose they change as a result of people

who are willing to demand it publicly, even when it's unpopular to do so.

I hadn't thought of it that context- good point.

[gatorboy]

69. What happens if an individual uses said beliefs to control the population.

You may not agree with Dawkins tone. But then he's not the one who is making laws on whom should marry, adopt, etc. based on deeply-held beliefs. Compared to that power, mocking just doesn't seem as vile.

[Marr]

73. I have no problem with Dawkins.

I think he makes a good point. I'm just not sure whether or not I agree with him. I don't know whether his approach is ultimately more helpful or harmful, that's all.

What I'd like to see is alot less religious indoctrination in kids, and alot more education in critical thinking.

[juno jones]

83. I don't need ANYONE preaching to me

whether they are theist OR atheist. I blog on some sites that might touch on subjects one might consider 'spiritual'. There is nothing worse than getting bombarded on both sides by unwanted trolls who either are condemning us to hell because we aren't 'religious' like them or one the other hand, being bombarded by 'skeptics' who want to tell us we're stupid for even thinking what we think. I don't force everyone around me to listen to whatever crackpot theory I have about the meaning of life, and I expect others to give me the same consideration. Sometimes I wonder why people have to spend their time trolling the sites and threads of those they disagree with, IMHO they have way too much idle time and a need to dominate others with their opinions...

[JI7]

91. beliefnet.com ?????????

[LeftishBrit]

94. Interesting

I am an atheist, and strongly opposed to 'faith-based' government or laws. However, I think I'd be on the side of the 'non-preachers' - at least until someone religious tries to convert me! I do become irritated when some atheists sneer at all religious people, or assume that religion as such is responsible for all the world's evils. Of course, I live in a country where religion is not such a driving force as in America (no serious politician here would conceivably say that an atheist could not be a true British citizen); and where religion is not so strongly associated with the political Right. And in any case, people - atheists and religious people - have the right to say things that irritate me!

There have been real 'atheist fundamentalists' who discriminated against religious people; e.g. the governments of the Soviet Union. However, there seems to be a tendency by some Christian Righties in America to cry 'persecution of Christians!' every time someone publicly defends atheism, or opposes some faith-based law. I find Richard Dawkins a bit OTT at times, but his free speech is not 'oppressing' anyone. Nor does having one single atheist congressman mean that religion is about to be destroyed. Ironically, Britain does not have official separation of church and state, yet it's my impression that we have it in reality to a greater extent than the United States at the moment.

[orpupilofnature57]

102. Exactly ,I don't think all atheists are communist ,even though they have the..

..same religious beliefs,none.

[Canuckistanian]

109. WTF is a "humanist chaplain"?

Is that like a "Muslim Rabbi"? A "Catholic Lama"? A "Jewish Wiccan"?

Since when does anyone who supposedly represents ATHIESTS get off calling themselves a "chaplain"????

From Merriam-Webster:

chaplain
Pronunciation: 'cha-pl&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chapelein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin cappellanus, from cappella
1 : a clergyman in charge of a chapel
2 : a clergyman officially attached to a branch of the military, to an institution, or to a family or court
3 : a person chosen to conduct religious exercises (as at a meeting of a club or society)
4 : a clergyman appointed to assist a bishop (as at a liturgical function)

[blondeatlast]

112. I was married by one. Mr. B was raised as a Hindu, I as a Protestant

who was then unsure of my beliefs.

I know that he had studied as much as a seminary student and had an advanced degree although it wasn't in theology.

[Canuckistanian]

126. My wife has corrected me

We were married by a Unitarian chaplain. We specified that we would not have mention of God in our marriage service.

She was terrific.

[BlooInBloo]

117. Every counter-culture comes in two flavors: within-the-system, and revolutionary....

... Feminism, black civil rights, religious freedom, and so forth.

Yawn.

[Dutch]

120. People who want to shove their beliefs down others' throats are a pain in the ass

Whether atheist or whatever flavour of theist. Greg Epstein sound ssensible--but i have to say that one of the things I personally like best about being a secular humanist is not needing "chaplains" of any sort...

[enki23]

124. horseshit. militancy does not equal "dogma" or "fundamentalism"

neither "dogma" nor "fundamentalism" has anything whatso-fucking-ever to do with how polite one is. atheism by definition cannot HAVE a dogma, other than the one from which the name is derived. an atheist is anyone who has no belief in god. that would be a laughably tautological "dogma" for an atheist to be accused of, wouldn't it? and as for "fundamentalist," there are no fundamentals to be "fundamentalist" about. all these words refer to the way a person chooses to interpret their sacred texts, and how they understand their faith. atheists have no sacred texts, and no faith. the terms do not apply.

the abuse of language pisses me off almost as much as the temerity of the fucking tools who seek to equate me and mine with the dobsons and falwells of the world. i'm a pretty damned militant atheist, but the only thing i have in common with dobson is that we hate each other's guts. (or in his case would, if he knew who i were.) that's as far as it goddamned well goes.

hell, most of us aren't actually even *militant*. mostly, we're just pissed off and willing to speak our minds.

[rug]

125. Well, for a change, it's certain neither side has God on their side.

How refreshing.