Atheism and political apathy
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
So? Are we still talking about the political involvement of the religious? You seem to be complaining about the political involvement of the non-religious.
Its all intermingled. Religious groups are more likely to be politically involved, since there is greater social involvement. What do atheists do? What has Dawkins contributed? Apart from disparaging religious people, nothing. I would sooner send my kids for mass than to one of Dawkins anti-religion tirades. Hatred for people's beliefs is not a quality to be encouraged. Religious groups have a different focus. They are intent on providing a service or a contribution.
Atheists do whatever they want to do. Dawkins has never encouraged hatred of people for their religion. Religious groups in the US do not have a history of political involvement, as I already pointed out. Having faith that everything is going to turn out fine because God is in control makes people complacent.
The way I see it, if like Dawkins, I would pick any group and go around highlighting their negative points, I would be called a bigot. Pick any group. Jews, or blacks, or the Chinese, for instance. Or homosexuals. Or even Americans.
So, I don't see any reason to give him a free pass, merely because he happens to be an atheist. If he had refused to shake the hand of a man because he was Jewish, you can bet the publicity would have been very different.
From an atheistic point of view, Dawkins has defended the rights of students to learn actual science in their science classes, not unproven religious dogma. I think we can all agree on the value of keeping science classes focussed on studying things of actual scientific merit, and Dawkins played a big part in preventing politicians from being swayed by religious lobby groups and think tanks who wanted to change the agenda.
From a societal point of view, Dawkins has contributed to a truly multicultural society in which all views are expressed and tolerated. The only proposed limitation on religious rights is the extent to which they interfere with the rights of the individual. Dawkins has come out swinging against the principle that a child too young to understand critical thinking can be told what religion they are and how they'll be punished if they resist. If I raise a child to believe that it's their divine racial duty to kill as many Asians as they can over the course of their life, that's indisputably a form of child abuse. In many British muslim schools, children are taught not only that apostasy is punishable by death in islamic countries, but that this is in fact a good thing, Allah's word, and that these children would be doing a holy deed by carrying out such acts on an apostate if they ever themselves had the chance. That too is child abuse, and the rights of the children to decide their own beliefs in this case outway the religious rights of their parents to teach them or scare them with violent acts. Sure, some could always put it into context and argue that apostasy refers to more than just leaving Islam, but also betraying your tribe in a way that puts them at risk of total annihilation. However, from my understanding, this is not what many British muslim schools are teaching; they are teaching their children to hate, and the results are very telling.
From a societal point of view, Dawkins has contributed to a truly multicultural society in which all views are expressed and tolerated. The only proposed limitation on religious rights is the extent to which they interfere with the rights of the individual. Dawkins has come out swinging against the principle that a child too young to understand critical thinking can be told what religion they are and how they'll be punished if they resist. If I raise a child to believe that it's their divine racial duty to kill as many Asians as they can over the course of their life, that's indisputably a form of child abuse. In many British muslim schools, children are taught not only that apostasy is punishable by death in islamic countries, but that this is in fact a good thing, Allah's word, and that these children would be doing a holy deed by carrying out such acts on an apostate if they ever themselves had the chance. That too is child abuse, and the rights of the children to decide their own beliefs in this case outway the religious rights of their parents to teach them or scare them with violent acts. Sure, some could always put it into context and argue that apostasy refers to more than just leaving Islam, but also betraying your tribe in a way that puts them at risk of total annihilation. However, from my understanding, this is not what many British muslim schools are teaching; they are teaching their children to hate, and the results are very telling.
Dawkins contributes to a multicultural society like Saddam contributed to freedom of expression. Only the people already in his camp are believers. I've seen his portrayal of Muslims and Arabs and I am not impressed. He sounds like a bigoted, ignorant Orientalist.
Have you ever heard him speak? He's anti-theist, not atheist. All he does is create schisms between people. I consider his contribution to society to be negative.
I've heard him speak, I think he can sometimes come across as condescending and insulting (he's been told that before, and he responded with a quote from a famous science editor: "Science is interesting. And if you disagree, then you can f*** off"). However, I'd like you to provide a quote or reference to where he said something against the rights of the religious to preach their views in a suitable venue like the private home. Dawkins is openly anti-religion, there's no secret about that, but that doesn't mean he's against religious freedoms, that's a different subject altogether.
Look into the archives. I'm not interested in rehashing "yet another Dawkins argument"
Suffice to say, I do not consider him a proponent of secular society, only an atheist one.
To get back on topic: Got any others?
edit: if he tried the arrogance and condescension at any formal science gathering, he would get very short shrift. I attend international science conferences and I have yet to meet any scientist who thinks science gives you a free pass to be rude and offensive.
Suffice to say, I do not consider him a proponent of secular society, only an atheist one.
To get back on topic: Got any others?
edit: if he tried the arrogance and condescension at any formal science gathering, he would get very short shrift. I attend international science conferences and I have yet to meet any scientist who thinks science gives you a free pass to be rude and offensive.
Christopher Hitchens
Muslims do not believe in a secular society.
So you don't know any Muslims who have stood up publicly and spoken for the rights of other religious minorities or athiests?
Know any educated Muslims like Hitchens who relish the thought of killing innocent civilians with cluster bombs because of their religious leanings?
Like this perhaps?
Know any educated Muslims like Hitchens who relish the thought of killing innocent civilians with cluster bombs because of their religious leanings?
Like this perhaps?
There aren't any atheist societies, secular societies are all we have.