Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,622 Year: 4,879/9,624 Month: 227/427 Week: 37/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 203 (359763)
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


I am agnostic-atheist and a firm believer in the scientific method for understanding natural phenomena. Yet I find myself increasingly disturbed by the actions and claims of supposed "freethinkers" who appear to be reinventing atheism and science in the direct mold of theism, both practices and biases. To make matters worse they seem to be the worst kind of theists: zealots/fanatics... evangelical at the very least.
Here is an article on Richard Dawkins and a few others, who are stumping for evolution and atheism, by attacking religious faiths and offering science as some enabler for morality. Some select quotes...
In the United States, atheists are becoming an ostracized minority. But now evolutionary biologists are trying to turn the tables: According to their argument, religion is the source of evil. Morals and selflessness are not God-given - they are the result of evolution.
When Richard Dawkins, a zoologist at Oxford University, steps up to the altar he seems visibly pleased to see the pews in the church fully occupied. In the best Queen's English, he reads from his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
...
Richard Dawkins is a passionate believer in the theory of evolution, and he has written countless books in which he explains it to his millions of readers. Now, at the age of 65, Professor Dawkins is presenting his legacy to society in his latest book, titled "The God Delusion."
With the zeal of a scientist, Dawkins explains why "there almost certainly is no god" and calls upon the faithful to renounce their faith. "You can be an atheist," he tells his audience, "who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled."
The image of Dawkins at a pulpit, preaching fire and brimstone about the wickedness of heathen savages (from his perspective), is pretty much the best example of where I see things headed, and it is not cool by me. I realize it is an article and the author may make comments that Dawkins would not want to have made, but this is a good view as to how someone outside of science, indeed people who may be religious will see science and atheism.
Zeal of a scientist explaining why there is no god? What real scientists can talk about gods, or should be discussing things in a zealous fashion? What does evolutionary theory have to do with his take on religion? Where can science, or philosophical atheism, deliver concepts of morality?
According to Dawkins, the laws of Darwinism explain why the behavior of most people is essentially moral. In fact, altruism is not even limited to the human species.
...
Dawkins believes that a similar system must have existed among prehistoric humans. They lived in clans that were small enough to keep track of and they helped one another. Like the sex drive, evolution stamped altruism into the brain of man. Modern man has retained this capacity for altruism, which explains why people adopt the children of others and raise them as if they were their own.
Evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser of Harvard University has studied the moral behavior of religious and non-religious people in various cultures. He concludes that all human beings have acquired "a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years," and that they have done so as a result of evolution, entirely without divine assistance.
Here science is clearly merged with atheism and moral philosophy, none of which have any real business with each other. In fact these claims are not science based at all. As we have discussed in another thread "what is science... what is not science?", such methodology is not science. They are looking for (or to my mind inventing) evidence to fit their hypothesis.
It also flies in the face of the counter truth... what people call nonaltruistic and immoral behavior is also part of our makeup. There is no set good/bad found within the genes or able to be applied to any behavior. Certainly not from an evolutionary perspective.
Here is an article on Sam Harris who is gaining in popularity by attacking religion. Mentioned in the previous article as well, this guy is evangelizing for atheism in the wake of 9/11 to point out how bad religion is, with atheism as the backup "sane" and "safe" alternative?
Here is an interesting dual position he never seems to answer...
In less than an hour, Harris condemns the God of the Old Testament for a host of sins, including support for slavery. He drop-kicks the New Testament, likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale. He savages the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."
...
"There is this multicultural, apologetic machinery that keeps telling us that we can't attack people's religious sensibility," Harris says in an interview. "That is so wrong and so suicidal."
So he wants to end all this divisiveness, by attacking people's religious sensibilities? Oh yes, and blames religion for sinful activity, which is sinful in what way if he is an atheist? He at turns uses and blames the same source.
And worse still he is specifically targeting the moderates as enablers of the fanatics and so equally accountable for the tragedies which spring from religion. Obviously there are atheists who have killed people or caused purges. Does that make all moderate atheists enablers in those situations? Apparently not.
He does not address the fact that atheists could very well have flown planes into those towers on 9/11, if they had some political agenda they wanted to further through terrorist activity. Suppose some atheists start burning churches? Or are we to assume that is an impossible occurence?
All of this to me, essentially boils down to atheist-evolutionary theorists attempting to regain social status by mimicking the worst traits of their perceived opponents. They are becoming "the enemy".
Do others feel this is worthwhile to either science or atheism? Is this something that (ironically enough given Harris's arguments) should be fought by moderates within scientific or atheistic communities? If so, how can it be done?
Although I am particularly interested in evo/atheist perspectives on this trend, creo/theist perspectives are also welcome.
(I have no idea where this should go, but my thoughts are either "Is it Science?" or "Faith and Belief")
Edited by holmes, : quote fix
Edited by holmes, : clarity

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminWounded, posted 10-30-2006 6:18 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 10-30-2006 7:58 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2006 8:01 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 10-30-2006 8:29 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 10-30-2006 9:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 10-30-2006 9:45 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-30-2006 10:47 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 145 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2006 8:53 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 11-01-2006 9:51 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 196 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 9:59 PM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 203 (359774)
10-30-2006 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


Don't worry that the numbering looks messed up, I deleted some posts to try and make things tidier, this may have been a mistake.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 6 of 203 (359780)
10-30-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


It Goes Both Ways
holmes writes:
What real scientists can talk about gods, or should be discussing things in a zealous fashion? What does evolutionary theory have to do with his take on religion? Where can science, or philosophical atheism, deliver concepts of morality?
I agree.
holmes writes:
Here science is clearly merged with atheism and moral philosophy, none of which have any real business with each other. (...)It also flies in the face of the counter truth... what people call nonaltruistic and immoral behavior is also part of our makeup. There is no set good/bad found within the genes or able to be applied to any behavior. Certainly not from an evolutionary perspective.
Bravo, holmes! While I will agree to some extent that religious fundamentalism is one of the biggest threats to the stability of our modern world, I agree with you that zealous atheism is almost a religion unto itself! The whole issue of the validity of Jesus Christ is itself a non-issue. People have as much of a right to believe in Santa Claus! IF God spoke through a man, God spoke through a man and no amount of intellectual hand waving will ever dismiss the fact. If not, we shall soon find out!
What is interesting is the irony of the zealous messages preached. Many protestant religious fundamentalists believe that the so-called antichrist is not just an individual who will deify himself and attempt to become "godlike" (a legend in his own mind) but that this antichrist spirit (zeitgeist) is part and parcel of the times we live in.
Why stir the pot if it leads to division? Perhaps militant atheism is driven by a fear of a theocratic government, but there are better ways to address the religious people without attempting to show them how invalid you believe that their beliefs are! This goes both ways, of course.
A Social Psychologist would have a field day with some of this behavior!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2403 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 7 of 203 (359781)
10-30-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


Sanctimonious humbug (and I don't mean Richard Dawkins)
What sanctimonious humbug, Holmes.
If someone like Dawkins decides to engage in public debate about something he cares passionately about, then he's perfectly free to use whatever arguments he likes. If you don't like the arguments, then respond to them - don't try to short-circuit the debate by questioning his right to engage in it.
Public debate isn't governed by the scientific method - there's no panel of academics to peer review the arguments. You have to make your case in as powerful a way as you can - once you get through to people, then they will judge the merits of your case based on their own experience. And that's about as close as public debate comes to resolving the truth of a matter.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 8:48 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 10-30-2006 5:02 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 8 of 203 (359785)
10-30-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


Now that I've actually read your links...
Now that I have actually read the links, I can more honestly give an opinion. Some choice quotes that I thought relevant:
quote:
"Religion doesn't make people bigots," says Reza Aslan, author of "No God but God," a history of Islam. "People are bigots and they use religion to justify their ideology."
Sam Harris certainly knows how to sell books! One thought that came to my mind is the idea that it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way in this country. These types of books are necessary and healthy to counteract the neocon fundamentalist ideas pervading U.S. leadership.
quote:
Because Christians and Jews cling to their "delusions," they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs.
Harris has every right to write a book such as this, and I am eager to read it.
One of the overriding questions presented in this article is the issue of whether or not religion and ideas passed down through generations are actually helping or hindering overall human development. One side asserts that belief in God is a healthy and necessary component of life, whereas the other side urges people to wake up and smell the coffee. (not to get off-topic, BTW)
I suppose that the question you are asking, holmes, is whether or not atheist zoologists should behave like preachers?
BTW, I urge everyone to read holmes links before commenting further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 8:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 203 (359786)
10-30-2006 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
10-30-2006 7:58 AM


Re: It Goes Both Ways
Why stir the pot if it leads to division? Perhaps militant atheism is driven by a fear of a theocratic government, but there are better ways to address the religious people without attempting to show them how invalid you believe that their beliefs are!
Oh? Really? Like what?
Look, we've tried to be peaceful about it. Live and let live with the religious has gotten us fuck-all in the past centuries. The result of trying to approach you religious folk on eggshells has been decades of discrimination against atheists.
Sorry. I realize that the religious would just as soon have atheists go away somewhere, but we're not going to do that. And we shouldn't have to muzzle the fact that we think religious ideas are make-believe, and that we demand just a little more rigor when it comes to figuring out what we're going to base public policy on. When life-saving cures, for instance, could emerge from the science of embryonic stem cells, it's bullshit that this important research grinds to a halt because a bunch of people are worried about souls. Souls are make-believe! They don't exist, and it's absolutely ridiculous that they play any part in the public debate.
Kudos to Dawkins for taking a stand. It's not like capitulating to religionists has done anything for us. The only result of trying to "work with the religious" has been centuries of being governed as though their make-believe was real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 10-30-2006 7:58 AM Phat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 203 (359789)
10-30-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by JavaMan
10-30-2006 8:01 AM


Re: Sanctimonious humbug (and I don't mean Richard Dawkins)
What sanctimonious humbug, Holmes.
??? What on earth was sanctimonious in what I said?
If you don't like the arguments, then respond to them - don't try to short-circuit the debate by questioning his right to engage in it.
1) I thought that I did respond to some of his argument to a small degree here, and I know damn well that I have elsewhere in threads devoted to evo psych.
2) I did not question his RIGHT to engage in anything, other than to pose as a scientist or a representative of atheism, when making the comments he was making. He can say whatever he wants to at any time. This is my response: his commentary is not derived from science nor does it represent atheism or atheists.
Public debate isn't governed by the scientific method - there's no panel of academics to peer review the arguments.
??? I'm not sure where this is coming from. Yeah, I agree with the above... so what?
He is passing himself off as a scientist and acting as if he is discussing tenets of evolutionary theory, while combining religious belief (atheism), as well as a moral belief. Moreover he is moving on to attack religious people from that position.
In this he opens himself up to criticism both from scientists, and atheists, and theists. And yes his claimed facts or theories can be called into question.
And I know for sure I have the right to ask if his behavior should be a concern to those he is claiming to represent.
In the past we have had atheists criticizing Xians for not standing up to those who represent themselves as leaders of Xians. In one of the articles I linked to Harris is pretty blatantly making that same argument. How would that not hold for atheists or scientists?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 10-30-2006 8:01 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 203 (359791)
10-30-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
10-30-2006 8:29 AM


Re: Now that I've actually read your links...
I suppose that the question you are asking, holmes, is whether or not atheist zoologists should behave like preachers?
Yes, motive is nice, but the devil is always in the details, or perhaps madness in the methodology.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 10-30-2006 8:29 AM Phat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 203 (359794)
10-30-2006 9:10 AM


How to handle religious people
It's been asserted that atheists have tried to get along with theists, but to no good effect. And the question is raised what approach should atheists take.
My first response would be that theists have been trying to get along with theists and athiests, but to no good effect. And atheists have tried to get along with atheists, but to no good effect.
Pretty much all belief systems involve some degree of antagonism with some other belief system. Its not the antagonism which is the problem, it is how such conflicts are dealt with. In the past theists as well as atheists have wielded their power, once gained over a rival in an unhealthy and impractical manner.
I do believe that religious fanatics are the ones endangering peoples lives the most at this point in time. I do believe that moderates provide some amount of cover for the fanatics, but not in the overt manner that Harris describes.
So again the question arises, what should atheists or scientists do?
Well, my answer would be NOT to do what these people in the article are doing. They are not "taking a stand". To take a stand would be to actually discuss one's position accurately and advance it in a consistent fashion.
The people in the articles are (in varying degrees) posing themselves as representatives of groups that they are not, mixing up issues with no relationship to each other, drawing and advancing stereotyped conclusions about groups (that we tend to mock when fundies denounce other groups), and essentially taking up the exact position of those in the groups they are denouncing.
While I am not about to back down on my atheistic convictions (at least not without some pretty damn good evidence), or my fight against religious encroachment on my civil liberties, I see no practical use of demonizing all those with faith. And there is no way I can support bad science and logic, just because he happens to be an atheist and wanting to advance evolutionary theory. It seems to me that thinking that its that way or how it ran in the past is a stock dilemma.
This is not about position, its about methods. Is turning into the stated enemy by following their methods the only way to success? Can't we think of something better?
Edited by holmes, : my against

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5279 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 13 of 203 (359795)
10-30-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


Holmes,
I am agnostic-atheist and a firm believer in the scientific method for understanding natural phenomena. Yet I find myself increasingly disturbed by the actions and claims of supposed "freethinkers" who appear to be reinventing atheism and science in the direct mold of theism, both practices and biases. To make matters worse they seem to be the worst kind of theists: zealots/fanatics... evangelical at the very least.
As far as I can see, Dawkins' atheism is of the common or garden variety. I'm not sure where you see the reinvention?
As for the atheists being zealots/fanatics/evangelicals; how? Just because they are against religion & are saying so doesn't make them any of the above. I've read The God Delusion & find it's criticisms of religion perfectly fair. I've also seen & heard several interviews with Dawkins & see no trace of evangelism beyond taking a position on something.
The image of Dawkins at a pulpit, preaching fire and brimstone about the wickedness of heathen savages (from his perspective), is pretty much the best example of where I see things headed, and it is not cool by me.
Come on, Holmes, Dawkins in a pulpit? Preaching fire & brimstone? This is akin to claims of evolution is religion! Is this the same device that creationists use, conflating the two opposite positions to render one as bad as the other?
Dawkins accepts evidence & is prepared to change his mind. Religion doesn't. Not only that but religion comes with all sorts of negative corollaries. What's wrong with pointing this out? Can't someone do this without being called names?
Zeal of a scientist explaining why there is no god? What real scientists can talk about gods, or should be discussing things in a zealous fashion? What does evolutionary theory have to do with his take on religion?
Why can't an ethologist criticise religion? Why can't a car mechanic, an evolutionary biologist, a tailor? Why would books like The God Delusion be more or less valid if written by a different proffession?
As far as I can see, all you need to make yourself qualified to write something like this is to realise that religion is evidentially vacuous. It is a non-subject, & anyone can be an expert in that. You also have to simply observe the world & that religion has negative impacts.
Where can science, or philosophical atheism, deliver concepts of morality?
Strawman. Dawkins never said that they can.
I realize it is an article and the author may make comments that Dawkins would not want to have made, but this is a good view as to how someone outside of science, indeed people who may be religious will see science and atheism.
They probably hold this view of science & atheism anyway. But my point is that Dawkins is not preaching fire & thunder, he is making perfectly valid criticisms of religion that are long overdue.
Can't someone simply tell it like it is without being likened to an evangelical?
Dawkins, Harris, more of the same please!
Mark
abe:
He does not address the fact that atheists could very well have flown planes into those towers on 9/11, if they had some political agenda they wanted to further through terrorist activity. Suppose some atheists start burning churches? Or are we to assume that is an impossible occurence?
Similar has happened. I stand to be corrected, but didn't the Soviets persecute religion in the name of atheism in the early days of their regime? But that iside, if an atrocity is committed in the name of either religion or atheism, it's almost always religion.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 9:48 AM mark24 has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 14 of 203 (359803)
10-30-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-30-2006 5:37 AM


Out of the closet
I'm not a member of the Dawkins fan club. But, on the other hand, at a time when people are saying that gays should come out of the closet, what's so bad about atheists coming out of the closet?

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 5:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 9:55 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 203 (359804)
10-30-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mark24
10-30-2006 9:10 AM


Come on, Holmes, Dawkins in a pulpit? Preaching fire & brimstone? This is akin to claims of evolution is religion! Is this the same device that creationists use, conflating the two opposite positions to render one as bad as the other?
Did you even read the article? He was in a pulpit. He was demonizing religion, speaking of the evils it can or has led to. The article played those points up so as to make the ironic comparison.
Yeah, there is a conflation going on and apparently Dawkins is willing to accept that conflation. Unless you are telling me science has something to say about theism, or has something to say about morality (and instruction of morals), then my argument certainly has some ground to stand on. I am discrediting his conflation, I did not create it out of thin air.
You ask where his reinvention was? I don't remember having to villify or stereotype theists, especially moderates, as well as incorrectly discuss other religions, as being a part of atheism. Indeed I recall many atheists at EvC knocking theists for doing that very thing. What Dawkins and Harris both use as descriptions of theists in general are the same fare as what Canadian Steve, Faith, and Buz have slung at Islam in specific... to much criticism.
I've read The God Delusion & find it's criticisms of religion perfectly fair.
I have not read that book. If you want to open a thread and advance its arguments I'd be interested in reading about it. From what was written in the article about his position, there seem to be some serious flaws in logic, much less gaps in evidence for what he is claiming.
As far as I can see, all you need to make yourself qualified to write something like this is to realise that religion is evidentially vacuous. It is a non-subject, & anyone can be an expert in that. You also have to simply observe the world & that religion has negative impacts.
He is not advancing himself as Joe blow the car mechanic. He is using an appeal to authority to try and make his case. More to the point he is foisting himself on my shoulders as a representative of atheism and evolutionary theorist.
Why don't I have a right to criticize an atheist for doing things that I view as not very helpful to my own cause, as well as straight out being errant in fact or logic?
Do you actually agree that a belief in gods is the main casuative property in people being divisive and willing to hurt others or hang on to irrational beliefs regarding the world? If so, on what basis?
Strawman. Dawkins never said that they can.
??? Did you read the articles or what? To start with I discussed more than just Dawkins, and within the first article it explicitly discussed Dawkins' contention that science and/or atheism can deliver concepts of morality.
In this case it appears that he is saying that we are genetically predisposed to moral behavior, and so will be moral, without socializing efforts from religion. This position has no scientific credibility. What is moral? Where did we find and measure it? How do we make sense of all the conflicting actions and cultures if it is genetic?
Just to be clear I am not arguing that we need religion for morality. Or for lawful behavior. I am just saying that his argument is not correct, especially as he is also knocking religion for driving people to damaging behavior.
he is making perfectly valid criticisms of religion that are long overdue.
I'm sorry. You believe that religious belief is simply because of genetic predisposition to believing what you are told as a child? You believe that atheists are incapable of the same problems seen in theists, and so atheism ought to be adopted? You believe that moderates are equal or culpable for the actions of the fanatics?
Criticism of fanaticism (of all kinds) is overdue, and criticism of religious fanaticism is necessary right now. Criticism of theism and theists are not, particularly from an angle of representing scientific or atheist philosophical positions.
Can't someone simply tell it like it is without being likened to an evangelical?
Yes they can. The point is that these guys can't. They appear to have donned the same manners and attitudes, such that the comparisons are straightforward.
I will point out that those articles were NOT written by me, and were not mean to be negative about those people. The articles described them as evangelizing and showed the ironic direct parallels.
I stated explicitly within my OP that that is where I see the movements headed.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 10-30-2006 9:10 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 9:53 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 10-30-2006 9:58 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-30-2006 10:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 36 by mark24, posted 10-30-2006 12:07 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 203 (359809)
10-30-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
10-30-2006 9:48 AM


quote:
You believe that moderates are equal or culpable for the actions of the fanatics?
When they do not stand up and loudly and frequently denounce the actions of the fanatics, yes, they are culpable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 9:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 10:03 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 203 (359810)
10-30-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by nwr
10-30-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Out of the closet
what's so bad about atheists coming out of the closet?
There's nothing wrong with that. I'm an atheist. I'm a freethinker and proud to be one. I would love to see more of that kind of pride, and would love to see the ranks grow.
He is not a freethinker, and not even a very proud atheist. He is not a representative of atheism nor what evolutionary theory says on the subject of religion or morality, though he pretends to be.
He is a bigot, who happens to be advancing his bigotry under the guise of atheism. I suppose that's fine for him to come out of the closet on that score, but he won't get much applause from me.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 10-30-2006 9:45 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 18 of 203 (359811)
10-30-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
10-30-2006 9:48 AM


fanaticism v theism
holmes writes:
Criticism of fanaticism (of all kinds) is overdue, and criticism of religious fanaticism is necessary right now. Criticism of theism and theists are not, particularly from an angle of representing scientific or atheist philosophical positions.
Good point. There is a distinction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 10-30-2006 9:48 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024