Do you like how Dawkins, Hitchens et al. represent atheists?

[GeoffP]

In my own experience, they do it to make their religions seem tolerable to the rest of us. After all, tolerance is only a rational philosophy if the object of our tolerance is not going to turn around and treat us intolerantly the first time he gains power.

A friend of mine insists that the vast majority of religious folks are sincerely nice, reasonable people who are not swayed by the extremists. When I pointed out that those nice, reasonable people persecuted Jews for a thousand years and then stood by while they were herded into camps, all he could do was whimper, "Yeah, but they didn't know they were really going to be murdered there." As an average American with a few Jewish branches on his family tree that were pruned by the Nazis, even I believe that statement, but it doesn't excuse them for the events leading up to it. This guy didn't even know that the reason Egyptian civilization can only be found in museums is that another branch of Abrahmists destroyed it in the name of Allah.

The history of Abrahamic religion is the history of its extremists, and the only reason those extremists acquire enough power to make history is that the "nice, reasonable" faithful people fall under their spell. The faithful are easily swayed by the extremists precisely because religion is irrational. There are no objective criteria by which to judge an extremist who exorts you to burn the Aztec libraries, hang witches, throw rocks at ambulances driving through Tel Aviv on the sabbath, or knock down the Great Satan's commercial towers.

But they don't want to admit that to themselves, and they certainly don't want to admit it to us.

Agreed.

I would presume atheists are as likely as theists to conform; as is evidenced by how they justify the idiots on "their side".

e.g. this

He's speaking truth to power. Why so reactionary? Can you prove he's an idiot somehow? What is it you don't agree with?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

zoology and dickheadedness are not mutually exclusive.

quite so. And dickhead scientists are usually fitter than nice ones.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Bollocks. Hitchens has an iron grip on the problem: bloody religion again.

the difference is that if someone were to behave the way he does, and be an outspoken christian author, you lot would brand him as "the next falwell"...its just the same shit he rails against, reversed.

Not everyone is an equal opportunity offender these days, but give people like Falwell the chance and they will be again. Extremism discredits faith; why do the faithful try to brush extremism under the carpet?

the point is this: have i ever offended you as a result of my religious beliefs? i seriously doubt it. this is because not all spiritual people are extremists.
i would personally be the first person to stand next to an atheist to block extremist behavior, if the situation arose.

not all followers of religion brush extremism under the carpet. i was banned from my hometown synagogue for not putting up with it.

aside from all that, hitchens is a big fat turd that shouldnt get public attention, any more than jerry falwell. they are exactly the same, in my eyes.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I disagree. Most people simply do not extend themselves; its laziness or a desire to not be involved, also called the bystander effect. This is coupled with the general human trend to obey authority. They expect someone else to take a stand. Like the boy who was tasered in Florida this week while everyone looked on. They even convince themselves he must have deserved it, since cops could not be wrong and applauded as he was subdued (for asking a question!! ) and led away. I would presume atheists are as likely as theists to conform; as is evidenced by how they justify the idiots on "their side".

Well Sam, the question was, "Why do the faithful try to brush extremism under the carpet?" I answered the question and regardless of the merits of your post, you have not discredited my answer.

I agree that instinctive respect for authority is the negative side of the pack-social instinct. Herd-social animals are much less hierarchical; they tend to have one alpha--a female at that--whose only function is to lead them to the next grazing area.

Still, as I've already pointed out, we have spent eleven thousand years wrestling with our pack-social instinct, using reason and learning to tame it to the needs of a species which has become--let's face it folks--in many ways herd-social. (Like giraffes: A little more emphasis on the "harmony," a little less on the "cooperation," when the intimate extended family we used to hunt with has been replaced by the anonymous strangers grazing with us at the salad bar. )

I suggest that a society which is run with a greater emphasis on the forebrain's reason and learning is honing the same skills that brought about civilization in the first place, and might be less likely to fall into the trap of respect for authority than one with a greater emphasis on faith, which is an instinct from lower in the brain. I don't think it's a coincidence that the intellectuals among us are the first to question authority.

 

[(Q)]

I would presume atheists are as likely as theists to conform; as is evidenced by how they justify the idiots on "their side".

It sure would be nice if theists actually took the time, like atheists, to do some research into the others camp.

When atheists question the claims of theists, who are unable to demonstrate their claims, they are considered "idiots" when they begin to vocalize their criticisms.

It seems to be the only thing theists can muster in their defense.

Of course, you don't hear Dawkins calling theists idiots.

 

[GeoffP]

the difference is that if someone were to behave the way he does, and be an outspoken christian author, you lot would brand him as "the next falwell"...its just the same shit he rails against, reversed.

Is he shilling Jesus' pinky bone for $9.99 a shot? Selling indulgences? No.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Of course, you don't hear Dawkins calling theists idiots.

Hitchens comes pretty close. His specific choice of words isn't quite so inflammatory, but his rhetoric veers off into hyperbole, with the same effect. He doesn't exactly raise the bar. If he posted some of his stuff here I'd be giving him infractions for trolling myself. When we claim to be on the side of reason, it's incumbent upon us to be reasonable. The religionists don't have that constraint. We should let their style of discourse speak for itself without adopting it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I suggest that a society which is run with a greater emphasis on the forebrain's reason and learning

Could you give a summary of how our society is run by reason and learning?

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the intellectuals among us are the first to question authority.

I don't agree. You're just saying that because you are a moderator.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Is he shilling Jesus' pinky bone for $9.99 a shot? Selling indulgences? No.

ahem...gross exaggerations, geoff my boy.
what he does do is alienate people who might otherwise take his sensible message to heart.
pat robertson without jesus. thats all he is.
hitchens, that is.

dawkins is, as i stated above, a dickhead....but he is an intelligent dickhead that has alot to teach the average person.

 

[GeoffP]

Bollocks, my good man, bollocks.

He's stated any number of times that personal religion is a fine thing, so long as it stays personal. Watch his debate with that dolt Reverend Sharpton ("Christopher made me do it! Waah! Waah!"). He makes his position quite clear. I don't like everything Hitchens has to say, but he's dead right there and I love him for it, the big drunken teddy bear. Keep religion out of law if it's doing harm, or where it's confrontational or antagonistic.

When Hitchens starts a Sunday worldwide ministry and sells steak knives, I'll buy some of your point. Until then, I need to buy some Hitchens Steak Knives. "Razor sharp - like my wit!"

 

[Xev]

Bollocks, my good man, bollocks.

He's stated any number of times that personal religion is a fine thing, so long as it stays personal. Watch his debate with that dolt Reverend Sharpton ("Christopher made me do it! Waah! Waah!"). He makes his position quite clear. I don't like everything Hitchens has to say, but he's dead right there and I love him for it, the big drunken teddy bear. Keep religion out of law if it's doing harm, or where it's confrontational or antagonistic.

When Hitchens starts a Sunday worldwide ministry and sells steak knives, I'll buy some of your point. Until then, I need to buy some Hitchens Steak Knives. "Razor sharp - like my wit!"

Christopher Hitchens vs. Al "Tawana told the truth!" Sharpton? Oh man. Please tell me you have video.

SAM:

I would presume atheists are as likely as theists to conform; as is evidenced by how they justify the idiots on "their side".

e.g. this

How is Hitchens an authority figure? He's a drunk, belligerent asshole who insults and alienates people.
I think the real line here is between those who want everything to be just so very very nice and those who like a little confrontation.

And, I'm disappointed by those of you who seem to think that each individual atheist has the burden of representing all of us.

 

[GeoffP]

Christopher Hitchens vs. Al "Tawana told the truth!" Sharpton? Oh man. Please tell me you have video.

Seek out the prophets of video. Youtube will show you the way.

SAM:


How is Hitchens an authority figure? He's a drunk, belligerent asshole who insults and alienates people.

I know. I love him so. I wish I could be more like him. Three out of four; but I can't afford booze.

And, I'm disappointed by those of you who seem to think that each individual atheist has the burden of representing all of us.

I think we need as atheists to speak up about people who share our lack of faith. I critique Sam sometimes on religious leaders and she's been good enough to defend each and every one, indeterminate deity bless her.

 

[The Devil Inside]

When Hitchens starts a Sunday worldwide ministry and sells steak knives, I'll buy some of your point. Until then, I need to buy some Hitchens Steak Knives. "Razor sharp - like my wit!"

he already does this. they are called "books filled with ideology that he ridicules people for not having".

just like jerry falwell.

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, but I can learn something from books. "Jesus'" thigh bone is not going to help me much. And Hitchens doesn't have a ministry show on Sundays telling everyone to buy his crap or start slapping on the InfernoBlock 3000.

 

[The Devil Inside]

And Hitchens doesn't have a ministry show on Sundays telling everyone to buy his crap or start slapping on the InfernoBlock 3000.

do you think he wouldnt do it if there were a market?

 

[GeoffP]

Hey, everybody gotta get paid. But it's the threat of imminent spiritual doom hanging over the heads of the faithful that's being used as a unfair marketing tool.

 

[Xev]

Seek out the prophets of video. Youtube will show you the way.

I am so there.

I know. I love him so. I wish I could be more like him. Three out of four; but I can't afford booze.

Pfft learn to mix 5oClock vodka and Tang.

I think we need as atheists to speak up about people who share our lack of faith. I critique Sam sometimes on religious leaders and she's been good enough to defend each and every one, indeterminate deity bless her.

See, I don't get this. SAM and her co-religionists like to equate the lack of belief in God with faith, and then demand that we recognize our faith in no-god. Then they say that we have no faith in anything and are nihilistic. Then they demand that we recognize our fellow co-no-religionists and police their behavior because it speaks, apparently, for all of us.

Now, I don't remember the last time I went into a mosque with a bacon and swiss fondue and a pint of vodka and demanded that the Muslims party like it's 1999, so why the fuck do they think it's appropriate to police athiesm?

 

[GeoffP]

Har! Nice.

Anyway, I believe very strongly in my nihilism. So don't impugn me, or...meh.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Pfft learn to mix 5oClock vodka and Tang.

many classy nights in my youth were spent this way.

See, I don't get this. SAM and her co-religionists like to equate the lack of belief in God with faith, and then demand that we recognize our faith in no-god. Then they say that we have no faith in anything and are nihilistic. Then they demand that we recognize our fellow co-no-religionists and police their behavior because it speaks, apparently, for all of us.

Now, I don't remember the last time I went into a mosque with a bacon and swiss fondue and a pint of vodka and demanded that the Muslims party like it's 1999, so why the fuck do they think it's appropriate to police athiesm?

yes, i understand what you say here...i just happen to disagree with the lumping of everyone together the way you see fit to do.
atheists (at least here on this forum) generally do exactly what you are complaining about, but with little words like "delusional" and "nutter".

i am a practicing jew, myself, and you dont see me calling names or belittling geoff (a veritable teddy bear of cuddliness) because i disagree with his chosen lifestyle. in fact, it is a common misconception that religion is synonimous with "fire and brimstone you are going to hell infidel because you worship the wrong god or gasp dont worship anything" mindset. this is simply untrue.

to say "sam's co-religionists try to police behavior" is absurd, and intellectually dishonest.
some assholes might ruin the party for us, but please be a bit more specific before levying accusations like that, eh? you seem smarter than that.