How I Learned Not to Fear the Anti-God Squad

[lightgigantic]

Interesting article from the wall street journal

Begins by addressing the bus advertising campaign and gives a brief run down of the american atheist scene which has modeled the UK one.

What I thought was interesting however is

Why should believers welcome this emergence of unbelief? Why not? We should be glad that there are people, even the devil's disciples, who take religion seriously enough to attack it, especially in these days when God seems to appear only in quarrels over holiday displays, during political campaigns or on the self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble. Should the primary goal of religion really be to fund municipal crèches, allow politicians to end every speech with the tag "And God bless America," or inspire works like "Tea With God: A Divinely Inspired Self-Help Book" and "The Christian Entrepreneur: How to Profit From Your God-Given Idea"?

and .....

Even my Jesuit teachers admitted, at times grudgingly, that the Protestant Reformation re-energized the Catholic Church by forcing it to respond to Luther's call for religion to engage the world rather than separate from it. While some who trumpet their faith may be a little too eager to engage in petty squabbles, we should be able to expect our leaders in all fields to articulate how their beliefs shape their vision, values, actions and policies.

So rather than "public stage" atheism being the coup de grace of theism, it can be termed as a means for allowing a more philosophically/ethically sound voice of religion to take the stage.

 

[wynn]

So rather than "public stage" atheism being the coup de grace of theism, it can be termed as a means for allowing a more philosophically/ethically sound voice of religion to take the stage.

Sure.
Sometimes, Christians even say that 'atheists are there to challenge the theists, so that the theists will strive to be better theists'.

But I do not think that Christianity, with all its various schools, has the means for a more philosophically and ethically sound voice of religion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Saying atheists are anti gods has it backward. Gods are anti human. Theists are anti human. Religion does the attacking then upon an understandable reaction, theists cry that they've been attacked.

 

[mikenostic]

Why should believers welcome this emergence of unbelief? Why not? We should be glad that there are people, even the devil's disciples, who take religion seriously enough to attack it, especially in these days when God seems to appear only in quarrels over holiday displays, during political campaigns or on the self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble. Should the primary goal of religion really be to fund municipal crèches, allow politicians to end every speech with the tag "And God bless America," or inspire works like "Tea With God: A Divinely Inspired Self-Help Book" and "The Christian Entrepreneur: How to Profit From Your God-Given Idea"?

The bold statement is where I stopped reading, as it lost what little credibility it had after that.

 

[iceaura]

So rather than "public stage" atheism being the coup de grace of theism, it can be termed as a means for allowing a more philosophically/ethically sound voice of religion to take the stage.

Sounds good. Let's see it.

In the US, the current occupant of "the stage" is the fundie wing of the Republican Party.

So that's what needs to be replaced.

How about the Jim Wallis or Wendell Berry crowds?

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting article from the wall street journal

Begins by addressing the bus advertising campaign and gives a brief run down of the american atheist scene which has modeled the UK one.

What I thought was interesting however is


and .....


So rather than "public stage" atheism being the coup de grace of theism, it can be termed as a means for allowing a more philosophically/ethically sound voice of religion to take the stage.

Thats a pretty sound argument. I learned much more about Islam after meeting the atheists here.

 

[SkinWalker]

Why should believers welcome this emergence of unbelief? Why not? We should be glad that there are people, even the devil's disciples, who take religion seriously enough to attack it, especially in these days when God seems to appear only in quarrels over holiday displays, during political campaigns or on the self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble

One need only read the author's excerpt above and see a failed grasp on the concept. Indeed, it appears that the author of this article is among many of his peers that are so personally offended that there exist those that are not only willing to question his superstitions but to do so publicly that he embodies that which he accuses rationalists of: taking it seriously enough to attack it.

Under the pretense of "welcoming it," the author accuses rationalists of being "the devil's disciples" -appealing to the spell of ignorance that afflicts many Christians, which is a fear of that Christian god known as Satan or the devil.

He then pretends that his primary god (Yahweh) exists (at least in the public square) "only in quarrels over holidays displays, political campaigns, or self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble."

If his gods were to remain in those limited domains, it would very likely be the case that no one would bother refuting the silliness and lunacy of his superstitions. Instead, his gods are thrust upon the rest of society, regardless of their pre-existing religions or lack there of. His gods are being sneaked into science classrooms where undereducated believers want their mythology to be presented instead of science; his gods are being shoved into the bedrooms of loving couples who want to have sex under their own terms; his gods are being pushed into civil matters like marriage; his gods are being jammed into courtrooms where displays of the mythology of a particular superstition make it clear that to be found innocent or believable, you had better align yourself with the court's superstition; his gods are being funded by our own tax dollars to continue faith-based services that expect adherence to superstition to receive critical human services; and so on and so on.

Religious nuts, the superstitious, and other deluded sorts have had the stage long enough.

Its time to laugh them off of it, except their act is no laughing matter.

I *am* glad, however, that you acknowledge that religious superstition is an "act" on a "stage."

 

[S.A.M.]

If his gods were to remain in those limited domains, it would very likely be the case that no one would bother refuting the silliness and lunacy of his superstitions. Instead, his gods are thrust upon the rest of society, regardless of their pre-existing religions or lack there of. His gods are being sneaked into science classrooms where undereducated believers want their mythology to be presented instead of science; his gods are being shoved into the bedrooms of loving couples who want to have sex under their own terms; his gods are being pushed into civil matters like marriage; his gods are being jammed into courtrooms where displays of the mythology of a particular superstition make it clear that to be found innocent or believable, you had better align yourself with the court's superstition; his gods are being funded by our own tax dollars to continue faith-based services that expect adherence to superstition to receive critical human services; and so on and so on.

Sounds very similar to the actions of the League of the Militant Godless in Soviet Russia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persec...t_Union#Interbellum_persecution_of_the_Church


...or its equivalent in Mao's China.

A Chinese man has been taken into custody and faces a possible sentence of death for charges alleging "subversion of the national government and endangering national security." But several Christian organizations that monitor human rights activities in China say Alimujiang Yimiti could face the penalty simply because he is a Christian.

Do atheists take any stand on these persecutions of theists?

 

[SkinWalker]

Of course they do. Theists should not be persecuted or oppressed. That's precisely the point!

What you're seeing in my words is, perhaps, what you expect: an atheist criticizing religion. What you're not seeing, however, is an atheist saying no religion should dominate others in a public square. That's what's happening in the United States.

I, along with most atheists who are vocal and active, have no real problem with what people believe. In fact, I'm a proponent of the freedom of religion every bit as much as I'm a proponent of freedom from religion.

What we have in the United States at this point in time is the very un-patriotic and anti-American sentiment that a religious majority gets the right to have final say on everything in society. This sentiment comes from that religious majority who feels that, because they are a majority, they're automatically right.

And that is where the recent proliferation of atheist books and media originates from.

 

[EdgeHead]

I love how it's religion that's attack, but never the nonbeliever. If someone does not believe in a religious town, they are attacked heavily. At least most nonbelievers have enough common sense not to ban games and books that they think might be of the devil. like D&D and Potter.

Ugh!

 

[S.A.M.]

And that is where the recent proliferation of atheist books and media originates from.

And by attacking theists, they prove that they are better at it?

not to ban games and books that they think might be of the devil.

Depends on where you live

BEIJING, CHINA (BosNewsLife) -- A prominent house church leaders who was convicted of illegally printing up to 40 million Bibles and other Christian writings was home Saturday, September 15, after three years detention, family members and Christians involved in the case said.

Protestant Pastor Cai Zhuohua of a house church in Beijing was sentenced to three years imprisonment in November 2005 on charges relating to "illegal business practices" and fined 150,000.00 China Yuan Renminbi (CNY), about $19,941.

Authorities apparently calculated the time he already served behind bars since his initial arrest on September 11, 2004 at a bus stop, where "he was dragged into a van by state security officers," said the US-based China Aid Association (CAA), a Christian rights group representing several house churches in China.


She said he "looked well with good spirit although he was not allowed to have or read a Bible in the past three years." In his prison, Cai was forced to make soccer balls up to 12 hours a day for 2008 Beijing Olympics, said CAA, which distributed the mother's remarks.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

These people seemed overly focused on Christianity. There are other religions too.

Alas...their efforts are in vain...like a fish trying to drink the entire ocean it lives in...silly people...

If it comes to a point that we'd need to take them seriously...they'd get snuffed out in a couple of days...for attacking liberty itself...if their goal is to abolish the freedom to choose one's own religion instead of abolishing the desire to make a choice!!!

 

[rjr6]

These people seemed overly focused on Christianity. There are other religions too.

Alas...their efforts are in vain...like a fish trying to drink the entire ocean it lives in...silly people...

If it comes to a point that we'd need to take them seriously...they'd get snuffed out in a couple of days...for attacking liberty itself...if their goal is to abolish the freedom to choose one's own religion instead of abolishing the desire to make a choice!!!

There is someone who posts about Christianity who uses a disclaimer that he does so because that is the religion he is most familiar with. I don't believe it is a subversive attempt to make everyone Christian.

 

[SkinWalker]

And by attacking theists, they prove that they are better at it?

Yes. But only if you define "attack" as offering rational refutation to theistic claims which have adverse affect on society.

 

[S.A.M.]

Like anti-theist books and movies? Banning religious education in public schools? Taking God out of society?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Thats a pretty sound argument. I learned much more about Islam after meeting the atheists here.

No, you've learned more about atheists if anything.

 

[SkinWalker]

Like anti-theist books and movies? Banning religious education in public schools? Taking God out of society?

Its a good thing this hasn't occurred then. Not in the United States at any rate. Nor have any of the books by modern rationalists that I've read called for either of these. Indeed, all have suggested on some level that education on religion be present in public schools (obviously not any single religion) and that people (society) should be free to practice their beliefs and even speak out about them.

It appears that you're mischaracterizing the "atheist position" to fit an argument that is easier for you defeat. Sorry, this sort of dishonest tack isn't working.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm characterising the athiest position as athiests have presented it to me.

As you are well aware, I had no opinion on the atheist position before it was posited.

edit:

No, you've learned more about atheists if anything.

Too true. But I also learned more about Islam, Muslims around the world and blogosphere and current concepts in religious thought. I met many like minded people simply from interacting with them on websites and was exposed to a deeper understanding of Islamic history. So yeah, where previously, I merely dabbled in it occasionally now I have a much broader and deeper understanding of Islamic thought and thinkers.

 

[SkinWalker]

You're mischaracterizing it as far as anyone here can tell. Which is dishonest.

You've not cited any examples or quoted any passages, just provided your own word that atheists (and we're talking about the so-called "New Atheist" authors that the OP is alluding to, not the atheists you encounter on this forum) are "attacking religion" and calling for the "anning religious education in public schools" and [t]aking God out of society."

Without specific examples, this is rhetoric that exists in your mind and not in reality.

 

[Nasor]

He then pretends that his primary god (Yahweh) exists (at least in the public square) "only in quarrels over holidays displays, political campaigns, or self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble."

If his gods were to remain in those limited domains, it would very likely be the case that no one would bother refuting the silliness and lunacy of his superstitions. Instead, his gods are thrust upon the rest of society, regardless of their pre-existing religions or lack there of. His gods are being sneaked into science classrooms where undereducated believers want their mythology to be presented instead of science; his gods are being shoved into the bedrooms of loving couples who want to have sex under their own terms; his gods are being pushed into civil matters like marriage; his gods are being jammed into courtrooms where displays of the mythology of a particular superstition make it clear that to be found innocent or believable, you had better align yourself with the court's superstition; his gods are being funded by our own tax dollars to continue faith-based services that expect adherence to superstition to receive critical human services; and so on and so on.

That's more or less exactly what I was about to say. If theists weren't trying to force their religion on everyone, most atheists wouldn't bother writing books or making films etc pointing out that religion is stupid. Does he really think that atheists are so annoyed over "holidays displays, political campaigns, or self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble"?