A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Bells
Staff member
There are flaws in the movement. If you can't see them, then you are just as blind as fundamentalist theists who can't see the flaws in their religious dogma and beliefs and actions.
In case it's escaped your notice (that was sarcasm by the way, it clearly has escaped your notice), atheist discourse is dominated by the likes of Dwarkins, Hitchens and Harris and their ilk. Their faces are plastered everywhere as the face of atheism. If ever there is anything about atheism to discuss, it's Dwarkins and his fellow buffoons who do the talking and usually end up making atheists around the world cringe in embarrassment. There is even a term for it. New Atheism.
I'm not a new atheist.
I am an atheist. But I am not a 'new atheist'. It seems you clearly are because to criticise the movement is apparently mean spirited. Fark me, you're like rank and file without an independent thought about your atheism.. a mere mouth piece for the popular movement.
New atheism is about taking over because new atheism is supposedly so much more rational. It's about atheistic conversions. I don't view Dwarkins as being rational. I see him as being a fundamentalist and an extremist who does more damage than good 3/4 of the time.
Give an esample of damage he has done.!!!
Bells
Staff member
Well that was what they wanted wasn't it? This is what they demand and what they push for.
Big bad moderator Bells in action and that is clearly displayed when my quotes are clearly taken out of context to prove a point, right Billvon? Or was I supposed to be on my knees, begging please please to a guy who picks and chooses his religious belief or atheism for mere convenience? Or should I do it to the other guy who is so offended that people disagree with him about what he wants that he took to calling people 'cunts'?
But taking things out of context is the name of the game in this thread. You just added to the pile.
So thank you for your valuable contribution.
Bells
Staff member
Aside from misspelling his name due to my lack of sleep of late...
Some reading of some of what is wrong with Dawkins and the new atheism movement:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/11/21/Harvard-Dawkins-damaging/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-stephens/can-a-religious-believer-be-a-serious-journalist-richard-dawkins-and-the-unbearable-smugness-of-tweeting_b_3141971.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html
He has no choice, the theist defines the atheist.
Id just like a sentence or 2 (or more if you like) in you'r own words what damage you thank hes doin.???
Last edited:
Umm, clueluss the links she posted are really good critiques of Dawkins and the new atheist movement. I think the last link Bells provided written by Michael Ruse was pretty darn accurate.
It's more clearly displayed in the posts themselves, which I excerpted. I assume you (and most people here) are capable of scrolling up.
Since you are a moderator you can say or do whatever you like here. It is, however, somewhat hypocritical to claim that the atheist movement is about mocking and insulting people, and in an attempt to prove this you mock and insult people while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground.
Nope. No one thinks you should be on your knees. However, showing some respect for the people you are arguing with might be a good call.
See above.
Umm... quinnsong she will answr in her own words... or she wont :wave:
LMAO.
There's the old saying that 'you get what you pay for', but I don't remember this crap being on the bill of sale. And now for ze complete response...
This pertains more to New Atheism in general, rather than Dawkins particularly, but this exchange is revealing:
Me: In other words, it's a methodological and heuristic assumption.
This seeming inability on Fraggle’s part to acknowledge this basic statement—which has been made in some form or another by virtually every philosopher of science in existence—borders on, well, religious fervor. It’s the insistence that any and all knowledge of everything that has any claim to call itself “knowledge” can only be attained through reason and via empirical methods.
But more telling is this:
Yeah.
This sort of thinking--and it is very much characteristic of a good many who identify with this New Atheist movement (if there is one)-- only serves to spur rationalization in a sociological sense, a wholesale devaluation of the arts and humanities and everything else that falls outside the reaches of precision empirical assessment (and a consequent fetishization of commodity), and the end of paychecks for people like me who make music for the sake of making music, rather than for subduing the masses.
But for as much as I am annoyed by the so-called New Atheists, I reserve most of my ire for Humanists, those who subscribe to naive appraisals of “Enlightentment thinking,” and the like. Fortunately, the more ruminative works of these New Atheists are taken about as seriously by professional philosophers, sociologists, cultural theorists, et al, as are the works of Ayn Rand.
It’s a global coping mechanism, that’s for sure. The question is, is it sufficient? It can reduce anxieties, provide a sense of connectedness and shared meaning, reduce the fear of death and uncertainty, and offer a sense of control and protection, albeit false.
On the other hand, scrupulosity, described as an obsessive-compulsive desire to be morally upright, what psychiatrists have labeled as a "religious form of obsessive-compulsive disorder" can be easily disguised as pure faith. Religion can also increase other anxieties such as guilt, shame, the fear of hell, demons, ghost, and even God himself. It can isolate groups and individuals, as well. It can inhibit learning and increase gullibility. Paul Tillich noted that it can drive the person toward the creation of certitude in systems of meaning, which are supported by tradition and authority, even though such undoubted certitude is not built on the rock of reality.
In my opinion, it’s becoming more socially acceptable to express our views. Atheists and theists are all different, but we are talking, which is always good, and some of them are listening.
Myth: Atheists Are Becoming More Rude by Criticizing Religious Believers
On the other hand, scrupulosity, described as an obsessive-compulsive desire to be morally upright, what psychiatrists have labeled as a "religious form of obsessive-compulsive disorder" can be easily disguised as pure faith. Religion can also increase other anxieties such as guilt, shame, the fear of hell, demons, ghost, and even God himself. It can isolate groups and individuals, as well. It can inhibit learning and increase gullibility. Paul Tillich noted that it can drive the person toward the creation of certitude in systems of meaning, which are supported by tradition and authority, even though such undoubted certitude is not built on the rock of reality.
Tiassa said:
In my opinion, it’s becoming more socially acceptable to express our views. Atheists and theists are all different, but we are talking, which is always good, and some of them are listening.
Myth: Atheists Are Becoming More Rude by Criticizing Religious Believers
Calm the hell down.
Now, like the man said: pics or it didn't happen. It's possible that he's changed opinion since his interview to the empty air, but even if he has: and? It's okay for him to blast SF atheists ensemble? Of course it isn't. There's no membership card that allows that kind of nonsense. And you're making things much worse with this kind of pap:
That is a gross misrepresentation and generalisation, and is nonsense. I'm sure that's how you perceive it, but that's no more true than claiming the Evangelical movement is only about prosetylising, or that the reactionary conservative Islamist movement is only about bombing people. It's a load of hogwash. The atheist 'movement' - whatever your position is about its being a movement - is also about combating the increasing encroachment of theistic philosophies into science and education. It's about refuting and refusing the social ills of every stripe of theism. I'm not sure what world you live in where you claim this grip on atheism but where you seem to want to provide carte blanche to theistic pressure on our society.
... Excuse me?
So now you're telling me that you've been involved in mocking theists on basis of their belief?
Well, that's great. Wonderful. And you're a model to the forums. Good job there. Nice work.
I have not the foggiest idea what you're talking about here. Your terror of lockstep ideology is a little misplaced.
So his being a theist is a statement of weakness? How the hell does that follow? I'll dissect this claptrap in a little more detail below:
But I seem to have to hand some provisos to you about my belief system. I see. That's not hypocritical at all.
Crap language aside, you used his supposed belief system like a shield and are now attempting to employ it like a blunt instrument. Stop. It's a simple matter. It's a push on SF rules, and it's clear to me that it's considered sanctionable because an admin does it. That's not cool, and you know it, and you're lashing out like a child that's had her sucker smacked out of her hand.
Get your head out of Tiassa's.
I don't consider your beliefs worth mentioning, really. As far as Dawkins goes, he missed the more basic point in favour of crudity: theocracies are bad for scientific development. The Islamic world has and has had a very strong involvement of religion with the essentials of state and statecraft. Was that 140 characters? It was clownish, offensive and grandstanding. But what else would I expect from a media figure?
This lockstep, you see, is in your own imagination: I don't know of any biologists or geneticists that are "lining up" behind Richard Dawkins and I know quite a few. He carries a certain amount of respect for his works and philosophies and representations, but he's not some Messiah out of the deserts of Kenya. He's an influential figure, in his way, but professionally speaking I can handily inform you that he is not an absolute leader of any such movement. Comparatively speaking, too, the dangers of this new Atheist Model Army - that's sarcastic hyperbole, BTW - are limited to a little ridicule in public. If you want to see a really dangerous lockstep in action, I recommend some of the more powerful militant theist movements. Why, they're positively a riot, in some places! Why, they're murder on people! Why, they're a controlling, vicious reactionary mob convinced that their philosophy enjoins them to conquer, convert or murder those not blandly or rabidly accepting their evidence for a Sky-Father that commands them to harm others! I think you reluctantly get the picture.
In illustration, Dawkins received a substantial backlash for stepping over the line; in a way, like your candidate is now. What is it you think this is? Do you expect "us" to gather up torches and pitchforks? Tiassa overstepped his bounds. I think a slap on the wrist would be good for him; maybe he really meant nothing discriminatory by it, just like Dawkins claims. He should just take his medicine, learn from the experience and get on with it. Why does this provoke such a kneejerk revulsion in you? Look, just get over it. What I'm interested in is equal treatment before the forums; not the threat of 'eeeequaalll treatment, GeoffP, oh yes, you'll be treated 'equally'! *cackle cackle* but actual equality. If you set yourselves so far above us, then you must act in responsibility with your position.
That was a pretty far leap there. Do you actually, really think that my pointing out the evidence of Tiassa's theism was because I thought, in some strange world, that doing so was the dictate of the movement, or something? Perhaps I sensed the needs of the Dawkins-being and determined that the best thing to do was conduct a theist hunt? That, Bells, is mad. You held up this supposed atheism as a paltry defense of ethical wrongdoing, and it provoked a simple, supportable answer. (I haven't seen your rebuttal, so that still hangs in limbo; ultimately it doesn't matter, but it's nice to have some actually verifiable facts to discuss.) It was of some interest however, that when challenged on this point, you tried to call me a theist. Why is that? I think you've absorbed some of the bile you're obsessed with and are now attempting to spew it on me. No thanks; you may keep it.
I'm offended by his ridiculous generalisation without the absurd conclusions you propose: it makes no difference whether he is or not and, in fact, it seems to me that it's you who considers theistic beliefs to be some kind of discredit, or else you wouldn't have ventured into posturing about just how much more of an atheist Tiassa was than me earlier in this discussion. I reject your defense on this ground, and that's that.
Then your salvation is simple: stop acting that way. Take responsibility. Stop deflecting or fantasizing about the supposed failures of my character - using theism, I note, as an analogy for a character flaw, which is a deplorable sentiment - and just accept the situation for what it is. If your client wants to call out specific atheists for their poor behaviour, do so. Stop generalising and smearing because it's easier and faster. For Christ's sake. If you won't do it as atheists, or theists, then just do it because you're meant to set an example for the contributors.
I argued briefly with Ruse when I was a lot younger; I pissed him off pretty good but I don't think he had a strong rebuttal, any more than anyone does who has a cigarette butt flicked at their head in a parking lot.
That was a joke. Actually I argued with him for a few minutes at an open forum.
Anyway, I think Ruse is punching at a straw man here: he makes claims about the 'new atheist' movement that are not uniform to its members and I think he, too, would accept that those making the more extreme statements are rational people who do engage in what they themselves acknowledge is mostly hyperbole. They're incensed by unfairness and not only are they as impotent to destroy religion as I am impotent to correct bad moderators, but there's no traction in believing that they really would. Hitchens himself refined his opinion many times to specify that he just wanted religion out of secular society; and yes, I get that the essential misunderstanding - for whatever reason - is why Tiassa and Bells hate him.
Unfortunately the difference is one of degree and not kind; most secularists and atheists want variations on the same thing. Few, indeed, really want to destroy religion and they are more than counterbalanced by those on the other side of this grand design that want to destroy secularism, and gay people. I could go into the hypocrisy of the loaded language that gets used by certain of our neighbours on the forums in prevarication against the ethos of functional reality, but it's late and I kind of don't care at the moment. Let's just say that it exists, and that the dangers of the 'militant camp' are a little exaggerated and just leave it at that.
On re-read, that last paragraph of Ruse's was a blarg: I get you're writing for the lofty heights of the average clot reading the Guardian, but for fuck's sake don't just posture in the last paragraph. The straw man is packed with horseshit, and it's spattering everywhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse
Bells
Staff member
Hah at your comments about Ruse. Conceited much? And your continued misrepresentation of what I say is frankly kind of nasty.
I said that as an atheist, I have also mocked theists on this site. I have at times found myself falling into the realm of 'new atheism'. You know, the one you are frantically defending without really knowing or understanding what it actually means. Hell, you can't even decide what you are. Perhaps you should stop trying to determine what others are?
You are offended because your role on this site is to be offended. It's all you do. You spend half your time posting one liner quips and reminding staff how you are going to save this or that to use for later.
Tiassa's complaint is against 'new atheism'. Instead of addressing the issues with that movement, you have taken it upon yourself to be offended on behalf of atheists because you can't even understand what Tiassa is actually even speaking about. Instead, you take a blog post done with a large dose of sarcasm and you have assigned him as a theist and then complained some more and surprise surprise, been offended even more. No true surprise there.
In other words, you are too lazy to read the articles linked.cluelusshusbund said:
If you want to know what I think of Dawkins, you can scroll back up through the thread as I have made numerous comments about him and his brand of atheism which are all written in my own words.
Wouldn't it be nice if that really was the case....Billvon said:
Utopia..
Respect goes both ways.
And the new brand of atheism can see people feeling guilt, shame, fear of ridicule (threats of rape and sexual abuse as I described earlier in this thread) and abuse in the public media and public sphere if one does not ascribe to what some atheists demand.Trooper said:
Which is a worry.
This is not what atheism is meant to be about.
A lack of belief in the divine has become a movement. It is almost religious.
On March 24, 2012, Richard Dawkins beneficently smiled down at congregation of adoring atheists before him. Dressed in a grey suit and a science-themed tie, he was no physically charismatic presence. Yet hearing some 20,000 people chant his name at the culmination of the Reason Rally in the National Mall, one could be forgiven for drawing parallels to Martin Luther King Jr. preparing to deliver his iconic address to the March on Washington. Then, Dawkins spoke.
“Mock them. Ridicule them in public. Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion.” His injunctions were sharp and definitive. They were designed not merely to excite but to establish the strategic direction of modern atheism. No longer would we, the faithless, remain passive. It was time for a revolution of reason.
The late doyen of atheism, Christopher Hitchens, once diagnosed the corrupting influence of a “father who never goes away.” Modern atheism suffers from the same problem. Once its visionary founding father, Richard Dawkins has now far outlived his usefulness to the atheist movement. In fact, the continued presence of his firebrand anti-theism is hampering and damaging our movement.
“Mock them. Ridicule them in public. Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion.” His injunctions were sharp and definitive. They were designed not merely to excite but to establish the strategic direction of modern atheism. No longer would we, the faithless, remain passive. It was time for a revolution of reason.
The late doyen of atheism, Christopher Hitchens, once diagnosed the corrupting influence of a “father who never goes away.” Modern atheism suffers from the same problem. Once its visionary founding father, Richard Dawkins has now far outlived his usefulness to the atheist movement. In fact, the continued presence of his firebrand anti-theism is hampering and damaging our movement.
Owen Jones sums up my feelings pretty well about the new atheism movement and he does so using Dawkin's obsession with Islam and his offensive tweets last year which caused so much controversy:
As a non-believer, I want the atheist case to be made. I want religious belief to be scrutinised and challenged. I want Britain to be a genuinely secular nation, where religious belief is protected and defended as a private matter of conscience. But I feel prevented from doing so because atheism in public life has become so dominated by a particular breed that ends up dressing up bigotry as non-belief. It is a tragedy. And that is why it is so important that atheists distance themselves from those who undermine our position. Richard Dawkins can rant and rave about Muslims as much as he wants. But atheists: let's stop allowing him to do it in our name.
I don't want Dawkins to speak for me and I don't want him or his ilk to corrupt atheism into being portrayed as being full of angry and abusive fundamentalists. Which is what we are fast becoming.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree Dawkins was a militant debater and defender of atheism. But he tried to be more objective and removed than his reputation.
Ask yourself this;
a) Can you recall an honest atheist (even Dawkins) ever call a religious person and his religion as being "evil"? I doubt it very much in that context.
b) Can you recall an honest religious person (even a priest or a preacher) call an atheist and atheism as being "evil"? I am almost sure of it in that context..
Bells
Staff member
a) 'Evil' is a religious concept, so why would an atheist apply it at all? Dawkins described religion as a virus and theists to be sufferers of faith. While describing it as a virus, or a disease, for example, is not the same as being 'evil', but as far as insults go, scientifically, it's kind of up there.
b) Why should atheists care if someone applies a religious concept to them? Someone thinks I am evil because I am an atheist? Okay then.. And? Get in line behind my relatives who constantly tell me I am going to burn in hell for eternity and beg me to repent on a weekly basis.
Dawkins is clear. Anyone who is a theist or associates with theists should be mocked and ridiculed.
The sad thing is that in the beginning, Dawkins was not like this. There was a level of rational debate to be found in his words. Now though, it's as if he is on a crusade. Which is ironic really. It's literally coming down to a 'convert or else' scenario now.
If you forward to 7mins 33 seconds of this video, Dawkins summerizes ''...and that's why religion is evil''.
He also said: ''Dawkins: �I�m reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I�m pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.�
Regarding (b), I couldn't find any.
jan.
jan.
- Status