The Evangelical Atheist

And they pray a lot, go to theistic religious worship houses, give money and respect to clerics, etc etc etc.

Unlike "real" atheists in majority theist communities. Right?:)




So you do agree that he is not vitriolic, badtemptered, etc, in his public image anyway - contrary to your posted OP ? We make a little progress - - - -

Thats not what Dylan Evans said:

Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate

Is there a reason you want to misrepresent me?;)

Dawkins does not make any such error - which would be an error of reason, correctable by reason, not an insanity.
No, not by his thesis. You seem to have a very strange idea of what Dawkins's "thesis" is.

Not really, its splashed all over the www.


How do you identify theists ? Like this ? : I don't know who is more moral, but the capitalist is probably more theistic - definitely more likely to be monotheistic with a theologically derived set of moral rules etc.

Ah and the communist is more likely to be athiestic. I agree.

Monotheistic religion beats it there by an order of magnitude. "Conservative" ?

Yeah, limited by tools it itself designs. Duh! Talk about a monopoly :D

Since when does theism restrain power ?

Just put a thiest in power and an atheist in power and watch the difference.
 
A patently fallacious argument. Nixed. Next.



An opinion to a patently fallacious argument? Ok. Here ya go ---> :wallbang:


I'm not responsible for your statement to an anti-religious stance or lack of it to an inhuman one.

Clearly. Let's instead follow the path of the faith based evangelist, to rewards in heaven after death.

Better still lets put the nutcases on either end of the standard distribution on an island.
 
Considering that belief in Christianity is a matter of faith, not logic or reason, it's hardly an effective deterrent to immoral acts.
Wait a minute. It was I who said that morality can be achieved by reasoning and that in fact my family and I have done so. My statement does not imply that morality can't also be achieved through faith.

Both faith and reason have been used to justify immoral acts. My thesis was that faith is not necessary for morality and that morality can be achieved through reason, not that reason is the only path to morality and that faith is automatically a hindrance to it.

I put the Abrahamic religions in a separate category because of the empirical observation that in aggregate, over time, the net impact of their followers on civilization has been damage so egregious as to be eternally unforgivable (the obliteration of three of Earth's six precious civilizations). But I blame that on the strangulation of the rich and complex human spirit by monotheism's pathetic one-dimensional spiritual model, not on its emphasis on faith.

I don't casually toss all other religions in with Abrahamism. I don't have enough data about them, except the basic Jungian observation that the traditional polytheistic religions are at least more in harmony with the multifaceted human spirit.
 
SAM:

Still waiting to hear your secular humanistic response to the unlawful detention of tens of thousands and deaths of some by torture. :)

The secular humanist response is, of course, to deplore unlawful detention and unlawful killing. Which prominent atheists or, more specifically, secular humanists, if any, can you point to who have defended such things?

Well its clear to me that "secular" atheism is not equal to secular humanism.

Of course not.

You can be an atheist and be a selfish bastard with no morals. Nothing forces an atheist to be a secular humanist. Atheism only concerns disbelief in gods.

The massive deaths under communist regimes may have been politically motivated but the transgessors were atheists, so becoming an atheist does not translate to peace and love.

The vast majority of the "transgressors" were actually theists. Communism didn't kill religion in the Soviet Union, for example. It just drove it underground.
 
SAM:
The secular humanist response is, of course, to deplore unlawful detention and unlawful killing. Which prominent atheists or, more specifically, secular humanists, if any, can you point to who have defended such things?

Are there "prominent" atheists in politics?



The vast majority of the "transgressors" were actually theists....It just drove it underground.

Err, I see. :confused:

So basically the transgressing theists drove religion underground, because they wanted to drive out superstitious thoughts and replace it with reason.

Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[8] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church.

An intense ideological anti-Christian and anti-religious campaign was carried out throughout the history of the Soviet Union. An extensive education and propaganda campaign was undertaken to convince people, especially the children and youth, not to become believers. The role of the Christian religion and the Church was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist

Well, certainly explains (Q)'s brainwashed outlook. :D
 
Last edited:

Ah sorry did I miss those learning experiences?:p

. The role of the Christian religion and the Church and Muslims, etcwas painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church and Muslims, etc in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades , etc. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist

Is that better?
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
The role of the Christian religion and the Church and Muslims, etc., was painted in black colors in school textbooks. For instance, much emphasis was placed on the role of the Church and Muslims, etc., in such historical horror stories as the Inquisition, persecution of Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and other heretical scientists, and the Crusades, etc. School students were encouraged to taunt and use peer pressure against classmates wearing crosses or otherwise professing their faith. In the 1920s there were many "anti-God" publications and social clubs sponsored by the government, most notably the scathingly satirical "Godless at the Workbench" ("Bezbozhnik u Stanka" in Russian). Later on, these disappeared because a new generation has grown up essentially atheist.
I understand that the Bolsheviks hated the Russian Church for its role in supporting the Tsars and as I've said elsewhere I can't blame them. But to be fair this was an indictment of a church turned into a sycophantic bureaucracy, not a church on its mission to save souls. Institutionalized churches are as easily corrupted as any other comfortable, overgrown institution and it's not fair to blame the religion for that as the Communists did. Communism was not above using dishonesty as a shortcut to achieving its goals. Duh.

But I question the assertion that a generation of Russians grew up "essentially atheist." They grew up secular and unaffiliated with formal religion for the very reason that the visibly religious were persecuted. When the census takers knocked and asked them for their religion they certainly said, "Atheist" because they knew their way around the system, just as some Jewish families in Spain during the Inquisition, which coincided with the backlash against the Moorish occupation, successfully pretended to be Christians for quite a few generations.

I admit I've never been to Russia, much less the USSR. But in every one of the several satellite countries I visited, atheism was downright rare. When they asked me about my religion and I said "atheist," their jaws dropped in sincere astonishment. People--many of whom had never attended a church service--began giving me lectures about my immortal soul and my need for salvation. I was hounded more passionately by religionists in Prague and Sofia than in the conservative Spain of Franco.

The Russians demonstrated that you can't stamp out religion with propaganda and fascism. It's a lesson all modern atheists take to heart and the reason we passionately support the freedom of religion in our countries, no matter the cost. The cost of intolerance is always higher. We have to offer reasoned arguments and limit ourselves to preventing an unconstitutional establishment of religion and discriminatory religious practices by those in power, and simply wait for the worst of the modern religions to burn themselves out.
 
It's a lesson all modern atheists take to heart and the reason we passionately support the freedom of religion in our countries, no matter the cost. The cost of intolerance is always higher. We have to offer reasoned arguments and limit ourselves to preventing an unconstitutional establishment of religion and discriminatory religious practices by those in power, and simply wait for the worst of the modern religions to burn themselves out.

Before SAM jumps on this, I'd like to clarify that this is the ideal position an atheist should take. It certainly isn't the mindset of all modern day atheists.
 
I understand that the Bolsheviks hated the Russian Church for its role in supporting the Tsars and as I've said elsewhere I can't blame them.

Sure thats one explanation. But. The Khmer Rouge also did the same, ie they tortured and killed ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, Cambodian Christians, Muslims and the Buddhist monks. Strangely enough, they also killed homosexuals and intellectuals including people who wore glasses.

Similarly, Chinese "secular" policies echoed those of the Bolsheviks
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/11/china10447.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0208/0208chinarelig.htm

Cruelty and oppression followed. First, the leaders of the Republic of East Turkestan were killed in a mysterious plane crash on their way to a meeting with Chairman Mao. Later, the Red Chinese government, which regarded East Turkestan as part of its own territory (and was unwilling to let it go) set about a ruthless slaughter of the Muslim population. The first war was waged against the Muslims' beliefs. Schools providing religious instruction were closed, religious leaders were arrested, and the majority of them were killed. Portraits of Mao and Communist Party flags were hung up in mosques, and Muslims were ordered to show them due respect. Some Muslims were arrested and executed on the pretext of being pan-Turkish, others of being pan-Islamic. Another aspect of the repression was forced exile. Many Muslims who were forced off their lands died en route because of the weather conditions.

North Korea also an atheist regime (mainly Buddhism and Confucianism).
On both sides of the border, Dobbs heard horror stories from underground Christians about recent North Korean persecution. Executions and torture may occur in large part in North Korea's prison camp—the gulag holds an estimated 200,000 political prisoners—but they also happen in public. Dobbs gleaned one estimate that the regime kills 300 people a year for their faith. Other well-connected activists report arrests of Christians were higher last year than in 2005, with perhaps 50,000 believers languishing in prison.

* In one prison, a warden hung a Christian man upside down and ordered him to deny his beliefs. Eventually the warden stabbed at him and pushed him to the ground, ordering 6,000 prisoners to trample him to death.
* Eight prisoners stayed silent when told to deny the existence of heaven, so an infuriated prison official ordered other inmates to pour molten iron over them.
* Some reports say Christian prisoners are deliberately crippled so they cannot walk; others are left naked and so starved they eat the rats scampering in their prison cells raw.

In my opinion, intolerance breeds hatred and is one step from genocide and torture.
Before SAM jumps on this, I'd like to clarify that this is the ideal position an atheist should take. It certainly isn't the mindset of all modern day atheists.

Not even most, if the popularity of stuff like Dawkins anti-theism movement, the Mohammed cartoons or such "secular" idealism as shown by the WB, the IMF, the UNSC etc is any indication.
 
Last edited:
SAM said:
So you do agree that he is not vitriolic, badtemptered, etc, in his public image anyway - contrary to your posted OP ? We make a little progress - - - - ”
Thats not what Dylan Evans said:
Yes it is:
OP said:
His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name.
SAM said:
No, not by his thesis. You seem to have a very strange idea of what Dawkins's "thesis" is. ”
Not really, its splashed all over the www.
The wide spread of Dawkins's writings merely adds mystery to your apparent take on his thesis. It isn't because you haven't got it written down, in his own words, right in front of you.
SAM said:
Since when does theism restrain power ? ”
Just put a thiest in power and an atheist in power and watch the difference.
Not much data on that one - and not much relevance to Dawkins, whose thesis is not about the minds of dictators, but those of the dictatees - groomed for them.
SAM said:
Better still lets put the nutcases on either end of the standard distribution on an island.
You do know who is currently occupying the "religious insanity" tail at the moment, no? Hint: it's the better part of an entire religion.
 
Dylan Evans is talking BS. That's my comment.

When Atheists want tax breaks, and start telling you when you can and can't have sex, and what you can and can't do, and start burning effigees of people in the streets for transgressing scientific method, maybe his comments would have some merit.

But those actions are performed by the religious, not the atheists.

Oh, and religion is evil. It has proven itself to be so time and time again. I have no problem with personal belief, but organised religion should be stamped out.

Actually Religon has proved itself to be human time and time again. Everybody makes mistakes, especially large groups of people. Claming that a whole institution is evil based on the mistakes of a comparatively small number of members is nothing short of idiocy.


However Atheists have indeed asked for tax breaks and have legislated sexual conduct. So you are nothing short of a liar.


By the way go ahead and cry Ad hominem, but we both know I am simply pointing out the truth and adding it to an argument.
 
SAM said:
In any case, the use of theism's grooming of a populace by tyrants and oppressors is well established - if it is one among various tools available to tyranny, still that is a valid criticism to be laid against it. And the evangelical atheist who does that is not wrong. ”

So is atheism's. To even more horrific levels. All in the quest for the good society of course.
Missed this one - no, there is no well-established record of atheism's grooming of large populations, enabling their cooption by tyrants and evildoers.

The modern large-scale atrocities - the Armenian genocide, Stalin's mass murderings, Suharto's mass murderings, Hitler's mass murderings, Japan's atrocities, Rwanda's misfortunes, Sudan's misfortunes, Bangladesh's misfortunes, the various Latin American horrors, etc (anything done by the US belongs here) - have been overwhelmingly carried out by people groomed under decades of serious theism. Aside from these, we have Pol Pot's followers - who were first helplessly subjected to the most intense (or possibly second most intense) aerial bombardment in history (by theists) and afterwards seemed to have gone a bit crazy, and whose religious backgrounds are unclear - and some African horrors of uncertain background (but without obvious atheistic grooming).

Atheism is only rarely and recently evangelical, and mostly as a reaction to objectionable theism; it has very little record of "taking over" large populations at all.

scott said:
Actually Religon has proved itself to be human time and time again. Everybody makes mistakes, especially large groups of people. Claming that a whole institution is evil based on the mistakes of a comparatively small number of members is nothing short of idiocy.
The claim is that certain kinds of "mistakes" are enabled by theistic religion. Enabled by religion in general, actually, but in the case of the evangelical atheist specifically theistic religion.

To say "everyone makes mistakes" does not answer that claim. Everyone does not haul local housewives to the public square, tie them to stakes, and burn them alive, because they are alleged to have cast spells of impure thoughts on the local priest. Everyone does not pen their neighbors up in public buildings and set fire to them because of anger over cartoons they have never seen in foreign countries they have never visited.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is:

Do you claim his attacks on religion are not vitriolic?

The wide spread of Dawkins's writings merely adds mystery to your apparent take on his thesis. It isn't because you haven't got it written down, in his own words, right in front of you.

I think having read his "thesis" on the "effects" of religion, which btw, ignore what happens when an atheist is in a similar position of power are biased and ridiculous. He should be ashamed of himself.

Not much data on that one - and not much relevance to Dawkins, whose thesis is not about the minds of dictators, but those of the dictatees - groomed for them.

Then clearly he needs to revisit the gulags of the Soviet Union or North Korea for the dictatees of atheism

You do know who is currently occupying the "religious insanity" tail at the moment, no? Hint: it's the better part of an entire religion

And what is your opinion about that?
 
To effectively dismantle a competing powerbase. DUH!

Thank you :)

That is my viewpoint also.

IMO, makes no difference if the person is a theist or an atheist, its the power that attracts.

Everyone wants to lead the next movement for saving humanity from itself.
 
SAM said:
Do you claim his attacks on religion are not vitriolic?
Yes. And I find the widespread tendency to take them as vitriolic revealing.
SAM said:
I think having read his "thesis" on the "effects" of religion, which btw, ignore what happens when an atheist is in a similar position of power
You completely misread Dawkins if you think he ascribes the evils of theistic religion to the personal beliefs of the powerful.

Dawkins is not contradicted, for example, by the circumstance that a fairly high percentage of Catholic priests are and have been atheist - nor would that diminish the significance of his accusations regarding the effects of that brand of theism on its subject peoples.
SAM said:
Then clearly he needs to revisit the gulags of the Soviet Union or North Korea for the dictatees of atheism
The Soviet Union is an example in support of Dawkins's arguments - Stalin seized arbitrary power created by centuries of theistic grooming. Russia was dominated by an institutionalized, politically organized theism, and Stalin was trained to employ those beliefs and that situation.

Dawkins is not arguing that there are no other sources of arbitrary power.
SAM said:
IMO, makes no difference if the person is a theist or an atheist, its the power that attracts.
And Dawkins is talking about one of the major sources of that attractive, arbitrarily employable power in human history, one that has served particularly well because it does not answer to reason by its virtue, rather than as a defect that must be concealed.
 
Last edited:
So what SAM and the like are saying is that not only is it inadequate to have a moral code (as with Buddhism), you need to be intimidated into following that code with the threat of devine retribution. What I'm wondering is, doesn't the imagined looming threat of devine power preordain a person to follow similar power schemes on a human level? If you accept totalitarianism from your God, wouldn't you be more likely to accept it from your country's leader?
 
Then clearly he needs to revisit the gulags of the Soviet Union or North Korea for the dictatees of atheism

As you are well aware, the gulags of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with atheism.

They were instruments of Stalin's power - the way he dealt with political opponents.

Stop acting stupid. It doesn't become you.
 
Actually Religon has proved itself to be human time and time again. Everybody makes mistakes, especially large groups of people. Claming that a whole institution is evil based on the mistakes of a comparatively small number of members is nothing short of idiocy.

Yeah right. 'For evil to triumph good men need do nothing', if there are not enough good men in the institution, it is rotten, and those that do not dissociate themselves from the institution after an atrocity, guilty by association.


However Atheists have indeed asked for tax breaks and have legislated sexual conduct. So you are nothing short of a liar.

Have they ever done that in the name of atheism? Their lack of belief on God leads them to a conclusion about sexual morality they feel they must enshrine in law? Or, the fact they are free thinking allows them a different perspective? I think you are being dishonest here, assuming atheism is the driver, when it isn't.


By the way go ahead and cry Ad hominem, but we both know I am simply pointing out the truth and adding it to an argument.

No you weren't citing the truth, because you seem to think that atheists are a co-ordinated movement, when that isn't the case. We are not a group, we are simply stating we are not part of another certain group.
 
Back
Top