The Infidel Guy Show
The Debate Hour Show

Faith and Freethought
3 Podcasts, One Feed

or visit this page.


FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    MemberlistMemberlist    UsergroupsUsergroups    RegisterRegister   
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 VideoRoom and ChatLive Video and Chat Room   The Infidel Guy's Video RoomFreethought Videos
BlogsBlogs    My BlogWeblogs News


Embed Our Player

~ TIP JAR ~


Atheists Split on How Not to Believe
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nimitz
Guest




Local time: 9:31 AM

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:51 pm    Post subject: Atheists Split on How Not to Believe Reply with quote

True Unbelievers

A sectarian split among atheists.

BY CHRISTOPHER ORLET
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

A recent Associated Press story, headlined "Atheists Split on How Not to Believe," has set fingers tapping throughout the blogosphere. The gist of the story as I read it is that there are soft atheists and fundamentalist atheists, and the softies are concerned that the fundies are becoming too outspoken, too uppity, indeed that they are giving unbelievers a bad name--a good trick that, like trying to give a bad name to an oil slick.

As usual, the impetus for this new development was 9/11, and the death and destruction caused by religious fanatics, after which some atheist intellectuals decided there was complicity in silence, thus they would be silent no more.

The spokesman for the soft atheists has been Greg Epstein, a "humanist chaplain" at Harvard University. The Rev. Mr. Epstein is encouraging the fundamentalists or "New Atheists" to pipe down, and warns that their outspokenness is keeping fence-sitters from coming over to the side of the humanists, a dubious allegation, at best. Though I can't prove it, it seems to me that passionate advocacy attracts converts as often as it drives them away.





The soft atheists have it in for three bestselling authors in particular: Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") and Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great"). Though they differ on many points of scripture, all three are passionately antireligious. Mr. Dawkins considers God "a psychotic delinquent." The doomsayer Mr. Harris thinks religion will destroy the world if not stopped, and Mr. Hitchens holds that "religion poisons everything." Mr. Epstein finds these authors rigid and intolerant, which ultimately makes them no different from the religious fundamentalists they condemn. Nor is he alone. As one English dean told the Guardian, Mr. Dawkins is "just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube."
Harvard's E.O. Wilson, another secularist, has also criticized the New Atheists, and suggests their tone is alienating important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems. "I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," Mr. Wilson told the AP.

Messrs. Epstein and Wilson have a point. Mr. Dawkins, et al., are intolerant. Mr. Hitchens, in particular, is intolerant of a great many things: Hypocrisy. Vacuity. Bad books. Henry Kissinger. He is especially intolerant of the multiculti Europeans, whom he considers too tolerant of intolerant Islamic fundamentalists. Though to expect an old pugilist like Hitch to ease up on believers would be like asking Joe Frazier to go easy on Mohammed Ali.

Certainly Messrs. Harris and Hitchens are no different from outspoken skeptics of yesteryear. "I see little evidence in this world of the so-called goodness of God," said H.L. Mencken nearly 75 years ago. "On the contrary, it seems to me that, on the strength of His daily acts, He must be set down a most stupid, cruel and villainous fellow." Writing half a decade earlier Col. Robert G. Ingersoll noted that "the Agnostic does not simply say, 'I do not know.' He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know." In their day Mencken and Ingersoll were both widely jeered. They were also highly respected by their intellectual peers.





Are passionate atheists being unfairly demonized? Absolutely, if by labeling them "militant" and "fundamentalist" they are likened to terrorists who fly jets into buildings and wrapped in TNT saunter into crowded wedding receptions.
Still it is important to ask whether atheists--as alleged--are out to eradicate faith. And if so, in what manner? Mr. Epstein, sounding very much like a New Age shaman, insists that "Humanism is not about erasing religion. It's an embracing philosophy." That's a warm and fuzzy sentiment, but the fact is many atheists do long to see religion go the way of the coach-and-four--much like early Christians had no desire to embrace pagan religions--though most favor bringing future generations around not by the sword, but rather by reason, logic and scientific evidence.

But wouldn't the triumph of secularism mean the eradication of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian society? Wouldn't it mean that the U.S. would evolve into a sort of United States of Sweden (Sweden being the world's most secular society)? America already allows abortion on demand and bans Christmas trees in airports--how much further down the secular slope could it go? Same-sex marriage could conceivably replace same-sex unions, but there seems little danger of a Soviet-style ban on religion, or the conversion of churches into horse stables. Secularism, after all, has not completely devastated Scandinavian societies. In fact, the greatest crisis these countries face is from their fundamentalist Muslim populations.

It was these fundamentalist Muslims that stirred the New Atheists and forced them to speak out. Now that they've seen what religious fanatics can do, I suspect there will be no silencing them.

Mr. Orlet writes the Existential Journalist blog.
Back to top
rickyroma
Repressed hippy


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 6516
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Good article. Certainly captures undercurrents of the IG.com meltdown.

I'm not a great Harris fan and am going off Dawkins a bit these days (though will always love his wit). I haven't read the Hitchens book yet, but I'll wager it blows the pair of them out the water.
_________________
Theists wank too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Blog Visit poster's website
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?


Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: Behind the computer
fo.gif

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:33 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

CHRISTOPHER ORLET wrote:
though most [Christians] favor bringing future generations around not by the sword, but rather by reason, logic and scientific evidence.

Bullshit.

The groundwork that has been done by secularists since the Enlightenment are the reason believers today don't round up atheists and other believers and burn them at the stake.

Also, I find it ironic that people are supposed to be swayed by "reason, logic and scientific evidence" to a particular FAITH, when reason, logic and scientific evidence is everything but.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Nimitz
Guest




Local time: 9:31 AM

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I haven't read the Hitchens book yet, but I'll wager it blows the pair of them out the water.

From Hitcthens book
Back to top
Gerard
Old World Shadow


Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 3982
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
nl.gif

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:52 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Sal1981 wrote:
CHRISTOPHER ORLET wrote:
though most [Christians] favor bringing future generations around not by the sword, but rather by reason, logic and scientific evidence.

Bullshit.

The groundwork that has been done by secularists since the Enlightenment are the reason believers today don't round up atheists and other believers and burn them at the stake.

Also, I find it ironic that people are supposed to be swayed by "reason, logic and scientific evidence" to a particular FAITH, when reason, logic and scientific evidence is everything but.


I think he meant to say atheists there instead of christians. He added a confusing afterthought in that sentence between hyphens.

Gerard
_________________
The Historical Atlas of Europe

But as man exists in nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature.
Paul Henri Thiry Baron d' Holbach, (1723-1789)

Not collecting stamps is my hobby.
Gerard, (1962-*)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sjc
P.I.T.A.


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 1603
Local time: 7:31 PM

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the thing about being an atheist is that it isn't a belief system in and of itself so therefore what one atheist believes, or doesn't believe, has no real bearing on any other atheist? So, this question is actually irrelevant.
_________________
America is not worth the effort anymore. RIP. It was suicide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?


Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: Behind the computer
fo.gif

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:18 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Yeah, that read as western Christan philosophy of indoctrination to me. Particularly with all the organizations like AiG trying to use "science" to prove their faith.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
rickyroma
Repressed hippy


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 6516
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Sal1981 wrote:
Yeah, that read as western Christan philosophy of indoctrination to me.

I have no idea whether he is citing an atheist split in order to comfort some ideology or other. Whatever his intentions, I think he describes a real phenomenon well.
_________________
Theists wank too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Blog Visit poster's website
rickyroma
Repressed hippy


Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 6516
Local time: 11:31 PM
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:56 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Nimitz wrote:
Quote:
I haven't read the Hitchens book yet, but I'll wager it blows the pair of them out the water.

From Hitcthens book


Hitchens: My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights," is a part of a continuous argument.

lol. I didn't think he'd actually take pot-shots.
_________________
Theists wank too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Blog Visit poster's website
Ophis
Royal Citizen
Royal Citizen


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 470
Local time: 12:31 AM
Location: Manchester, UK

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:58 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

The idea of a "sectarian split" only applies to dogmatic religions such as Christianity or Islam. In those cases, you can't disagree about religious matters and just be thought wrong. If you disagree with established doctrine, you are a heretic or a blasphemer, and you either have to keep quiet or split into a new sect. You can't just disagree within the group. With atheism, which is defined only by a disbelief in God, that doesn't apply. Without clear established dogmas set out by some person in authority, you don't have clearly defined sects, and "sectarian splits" are impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncertainty
Forum Master
Forum Master


Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 3414
Local time: 6:31 PM
Location: Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Isn't this kind of silly? :O
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nimitz
Guest




Local time: 9:31 AM

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Isn't this kind of silly? :O

Reminds me of the debate between ninjas and pirates.
We all know pirates are way cooler than ninjas!
Back to top
monty



Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 923
Local time: 5:31 PM
Location: Lakeville MN

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

rickyroma wrote:
Good article. Certainly captures undercurrents of the IG.com meltdown


Someone want to explain to me what the ig.com meltdown was? I used to go to the IG site quite often but then (long story goes here) and then I didn't for like a year and it had greatly changed when I went back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Blog Yahoo Messenger
Castaa
Forum Master
Forum Master


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 2178
Local time: 3:31 PM
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:41 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Harris is hard but keeps a calm demeanor. Hitchens and Dawkins are less likable and get a bit prickly in interviews. Although Dawkins on O'Reilly was pretty subdued.

I believe they are all making the same arguments.

I think Harris in style bridges the gap in his public appearances.

Where's Richard Carrier when you need him!? Wink
_________________
MY YouTube Videos Very Happy


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rock
Forum Master
Forum Master


Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2002
Local time: 3:31 PM
Location: WA
us.gif

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:24 am    Post subject: Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote

Nimitz wrote:
Quote:
Isn't this kind of silly? :O

Reminds me of the debate between ninjas and pirates.
We all know pirates are way cooler than ninjas!


Fuck yeah!


And yeah this is just some silly crap with pop-culture trying to create labels for "us" so they can group us. Which I have no problem with, until it comes to such a huge vagueness as atheist or theist. In pop-culture atheist seems to mean anti-religion naturalist.
I'm starting to get real sick of this kind of super-pro tolerance position where god forbid we take a stance on anything other than total tolerance. I tolerate your right to have beliefs. I don't tolerate your "right" to have unquestionable beliefs.

God I hate these stupid liberal intolerant tolerance police.
_________________
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised lands
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Debt - Loan - Personal Loans - Personal Finance - Free Image Gallery
phpBB SEO