The Problem with Atheism

[Spartacus FPV]

This year at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, Sam Harris gave a highly controversial speech condemning what has become of the "New Atheists," to the crowd that came expecting more preaching to the choir from Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

I've always felt that the label atheist was unnecessary, just as we do not have labels for people who find astrology to be rubbish, but this article has forced me to reconsider a great many of my positions on how to go about debunking mysticism or promoting logic and reason.

This article is making waves among the atheist community at RichardDawkins.net and on digg.com; I figured many here, including our theists, would like to give it a read. Here are snippets that struck me the most:

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of "atheist," it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I'm not saying that meetings like this aren't important. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the "new atheists" or "militant atheists" has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm's length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves "atheists." We should not call ourselves "secularists." We should not call ourselves "humanists," or "secular humanists," or "naturalists," or "skeptics," or "anti-theists," or "rationalists," or "freethinkers," or "brights." We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.

But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.

Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It's as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

Another problem with calling ourselves "atheists" is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We've all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves "atheists. Arguments like: atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself "doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist." The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell's teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term "atheism."

So too with the "greatest crimes of the 20th century" argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I've got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves "atheists." And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.

Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like "reason" and "evidence." What is the argument against reason? It's true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It's not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.

Finally, I think it's useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won't be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are "nonracist." Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than "atheism."

I highly recommend you all read the full article, but even if these snippets, or the bold of these snippets are as far as you'll read; Thoughts?

 

[WI Crippler]

Just read your snippets, but I really agree with alot of what was said. I have often told people I am a self-hating atheist. Meaning I don't like the tone and the arrogance with which atheists approach people who choose to believe in a religion.
I also agree with his sentiment about Islam being more threatening, at this point and time, than christianity. I always felt atheism allowed itself to focus too narrowley on christianity, rather than religion as a whole.

 

[Cold Highway]

When I tell people Im a Theist they think im an Atheist.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Guilty as charged

Just read your snippets, but I really agree with alot of what was said. I have often told people I am a self-hating atheist. Meaning I don't like the tone and the arrogance with which atheists approach people who choose to believe in a religion.

I liken it to the sort of "this is the truth, and if you don't agree, you're a moron" attitude, for which I am guilty of. I've often been told I could be alot more persuasive if I weren't so antagonistic.

But this whole "attack dog" approach has been advocated by the so called figureheads of the "New Atheists" movement. Here is how Neil Tyson DeGrasse (my favorite, and most respectable theist) put it to Richard Dawkins:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik[/YOUTUBE]

I also agree with his sentiment about Islam being more threatening, at this point and time, than christianity. I always felt atheism allowed itself to focus too narrowley on christianity, rather than religion as a whole.

This too we have been guilty of. I think its due to our desire to attack all faith based claims; Once we see someone attacking one religion, and we see the arguments they use as contradictory to their own dogmas, we feel the need to broaden the scope of the argument to all religions, and Christianity is the "top dog."

But like Sam Harris said, doing this alienates would-be allies like yourself, and religious moderates who would otherwise agree if you didn't include them in the scope of contempt.

When I tell people Im a Theist they think im an Atheist.

Good one.

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: Guilty as charged

This too we have been guilty of. I think its due to our desire to attack all faith based claims; Once we see someone attacking one religion, and we see the arguments they use as contradictory to their own dogmas, we feel the need to broaden the scope of the argument to all religions, and Christianity is the "top dog."
.

Thats my problem. Atheists in general have felt the need to "attack" religion. Why follow in the same footsteps that religion has?? Diety or not, attacking someones belief is the same as attacking someones non-belief. Atheists get defensive when they feel attacked by theists, why should we expect theists to not become defensive when they are attacked by us in the same manner, and with the same condemnation?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Its not the same thing

Thats my problem. Atheists in general have felt the need to "attack" religion.

You can't debunk bad ideas without eventually crossing the religious, and these people take their ideas very personally.

If you're the kind of person who cares about what is true, why should you be silent giving unwarranted respect for someone else's belief? How are the people of reason to address false claims?

Should scientists avoid posting articles that suggest the earth's age is greater than 6000 years? You cannot speak truth without offended some deluded lot. You cannot show how a zealously held belief is false without a person either taking it personally, or utterly shattering their world view.

How would you address a claim you know to be false or illogical?

Why follow in the same footsteps that religion has?? Diety or not, attacking someones belief is the same as attacking someones non-belief.

I disagree, whenever I am faced with contempt for Atheism, its usually a personal offense. "How could YOU not believe in god."

Attacking someone for their lack of belief is often due to a perceived arrogance. Attacking bad ideas, like religious claims, are a matter of having respect for what is actually true.

Lets forget the fact that most people are religious; If only some people you knew were pretending to know something that would be, if true, the most metaphysically piece of information; Why is it wrong to approach them in a skeptical manner for your own selfish benefit, if it turned out to be true?

Atheists get defensive when they feel attacked by theists, why should we expect theists to not become defensive when they are attacked by us in the same manner, and with the same condemnation?

Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person. Atheists get offended at the notion that "you cannot be moral without a god." This kind of sanctimoniousness warrants an attack.

I just don't equate debunking an illogical idea to attacking a person. I expect theists to be defensive if I question claims that they're used to having gone unquestioned. I would want them to defend their words, I would like to believe that they arrived where they are with a motivation of understanding the universe, just as I did. Anyone intellectually honest, with a respect for truth, should have no problem defending their claims.

 

[Summerwind]

Re: Guilty as charged

Well first off, it seems the speech is referencing "attacking" by atheists rather than recognizing that the "attacks" are self defensive. Right now religion in our country and perhaps worldwide has a detrimental effect on civil rights (gay marriage, abortion, etc.), on education (science and history primarily), on our tax system (church and related entities pay no taxes yet own land, private schools, and further receive taxes for faith based services, etc.), so I feel the need to defend myself and others like me that think religion and the religious are overstepping their bounds and pushing their agenda onto our lives.

Secondly, if we want the abovementioned to be minimized; we have to group together and work together just like any lobby group, church group, or corporate group; so we have to have some term to be identified by in order to group. If not atheist then what? Seems in the article he also throws out a dozen other potential terms.

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: Its not the same thing

You can't debunk bad ideas without eventually crossing the religious, and these people take their ideas very personally.

If you're the kind of person who cares about what is true, why should you be silent giving unwarranted respect for someone else's belief? How are the people of reason to address false claims?

Should scientists avoid posting articles that suggest the earth's age is greater than 6000 years? You cannot speak truth without offended some deluded lot. You cannot show how a zealously held belief is false without a person either taking it personally, or utterly shattering their world view.

How would you address a claim you know to be false or illogical?



I disagree, whenever I am faced with contempt for Atheism, its usually a personal offense. "How could YOU not believe in god."

Attacking someone for their lack of belief is often due to a perceived arrogance. Attacking bad ideas, like religious claims, are a matter of having respect for what is actually true.

Lets forget the fact that most people are religious; If only some people you knew were pretending to know something that would be, if true, the most metaphysically piece of information; Why is it wrong to approach them in a skeptical manner for your own selfish benefit, if it turned out to be true?



Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person. Atheists get offended at the notion that "you cannot be moral without a god." This kind of sanctimoniousness warrants an attack.

I just don't equate debunking an illogical idea to attacking a person. I expect theists to be defensive if I question claims that they're used to having gone unquestioned. I would want them to defend their words, I would like to believe that they arrived where they are with a motivation of understanding the universe, just as I did. Anyone intellectually honest, with a respect for truth, should have no problem defending their claims.

Its one thing to discuss things with people that are religious, and its another to treat their belief with contempt. Science is great in that it constantly seeks to validate itself, by being self correcting. It stands on its own merit. It debunks alot of what fundamentalist religions adhere to and teach. It also debunks pseudo-scientific claims, which use portions of science that agree with their pre concieved notions, and disregards all the other science that questions it.
But when you equate belief in God as illogical, how can one who believes in God not be offended? What kind of response do you expect them to have? You have just insulted their intelligence, and have set yourself up as a pompus, arrogant prick. Just like a close minded religious person does whenn they attack atheists.
The better way to approach and discuss with people about the short comings of religion, is to leave open the possibility of a higher power, while discussing the shortcoming of religion in general and how it has historically limited mankinds advancement. If you get personal with their belief, its been my experience that you are going to be shut off, and all your evidence that counters their is going to be shut out because you have attacked them personally.
If atheists approached religious discussions as an exchange of ideas, rather than a mental fist fight, they may find that the going is easier.
Instead of trying to shut the door on their belief, just open them to ours and let them walk through on their own accord. If they refuse, there was nothing you could have done in the first place.

 

[Cephus]

Meaning I don't like the tone and the arrogance with which atheists approach people who choose to believe in a religion.

The overwhelming majority of atheists only do that in response to religion, you rarely ever see atheists go out and attack religion because they have nothing to do on a Saturday night. If theists would just leave atheists alone, the overwhelming majority of us would never bother thinking about religion again as long as we lived. It's the theist imperative to shove their silly beliefs down the throat of everyone around them that causes the problem.

 

[Cephus]

Re: Its not the same thing

But when you equate belief in God as illogical, how can one who believes in God not be offended?

But it *IS* illogical! If some guy walked up to you with a tin-foil hat on his head and told you about the alien mind control rays, would you tell him he was right and reasonable or would you tell him he was out of his gourd? You're so worried about not offending loony-toon theists but if someone who is wrong walks up to you and insists that they are right, it is your responsibility to correct them. No one has a right not to be offended, that's political correctness at it's worst.

 

[WI Crippler]

The overwhelming majority of atheists only do that in response to religion, you rarely ever see atheists go out and attack religion because they have nothing to do on a Saturday night. If theists would just leave atheists alone, the overwhelming majority of us would never bother thinking about religion again as long as we lived. It's the theist imperative to shove their silly beliefs down the throat of everyone around them that causes the problem.

Why am I not experiencing this "shoved down the throat" aspect of religion then?? Where is it, that atheists as a whole feel attacked, and I don't?? Nobody of any religion bothers me, as it currently stands. And you see, you say "silly beliefs". Thats your opinion, but if you didn't state it in such a demeaning manner, prehaps you would get further in countering them in a discussion, instead of turning it into an argument.

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: Its not the same thing

But it *IS* illogical! If some guy walked up to you with a tin-foil hat on his head and told you about the alien mind control rays, would you tell him he was right and reasonable or would you tell him he was out of his gourd? You're so worried about not offending loony-toon theists but if someone who is wrong walks up to you and insists that they are right, it is your responsibility to correct them. No one has a right not to be offended, that's political correctness at it's worst.

But I am not offended by his belief, no matter how loony I may feel it is. I don't believe what he does. Why should I feel threatened by it, if I find it ridiculous?? And if I am in the business of changing hearts and minds I don''t go ripping his tin foil hat off and shoving it up his ***, and saying "thats what I think of your belief. So do you want to be an atheist now??"

 

[niftydrifty]

The overwhelming majority of atheists only do that in response to religion, you rarely ever see atheists go out and attack religion because they have nothing to do on a Saturday night. If theists would just leave atheists alone, the overwhelming majority of us would never bother thinking about religion again as long as we lived. It's the theist imperative to shove their silly beliefs down the throat of everyone around them that causes the problem.

this is perhaps the most outright, outrageously, hypocritical statement I've ever heard in my life. LOL!

Cephus, how many religious threads have you entered, regardless of the topic, and stated that there is no God, that belief in God is silly, etc? Huh? How many? How about all of them?

If theists would just leave atheists alone

you rarely ever see atheists go out and attack religion

LOL! This is RICH!

Great thread, Lachean.

My thoughts about this topic are:

1. I love Harris. He's a thoughtful and articulate guy. He challenges things in just the right way. He pushes things towards a better debate.

2. It's almost irrelevant. To speak about Dawkins' delivery in the way that DeGrasse did, is merely a critique of tone. It doesn't address the arguments. If Dawkins is derisive, or if Lachean is derisive, ultimately, who cares? That's not all you do. You both make cases, too. I mean we have to wade thru the extra stuff to get to them, but IMO, the arguments should be addressed, and to only say (or to ever say) that "you sound angry or arrogant," isn't an argument. But, sure, it is there. But still.

3. I can appreciate that atheists (for lack of a better term) want to work on these issues. Bravo.

4. God is at work here.

 

[Cephus]

Why am I not experiencing this "shoved down the throat" aspect of religion then?? Where is it, that atheists as a whole feel attacked, and I don't?? Nobody of any religion bothers me, as it currently stands. And you see, you say "silly beliefs". Thats your opinion, but if you didn't state it in such a demeaning manner, prehaps you would get further in countering them in a discussion, instead of turning it into an argument.

Apparently you're not very observant then because the religious right is trying (and often succeeding) in using your tax money to fund religious practices and the idiot in the White House has constantly used God as an excuse for irrational action. Even here on DP, there are plenty of topics where the only "defense" is "God said so", combined with threats for not rolling over and blindly believing it.

And yes, believing in an invisible all-powerful imaginary friend in the sky is a silly belief, no matter how you look at it. You simply cannot discuss anything with these people because they're not interested in facts, they know what they believe and everything else can go to hell. They are fanatics of the highest order.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No point by point rebuttal? Awww

Its one thing to discuss things with people that are religious, and its another to treat their belief with contempt.

Don't a great many dogmatic beliefs warrant contempt? I can think of quite a few that if spoken out loud may even provoke violence.

Science is great in that it constantly seeks to validate itself, by being self correcting. It stands on its own merit. It debunks alot of what fundamentalist religions adhere to and teach. It also debunks pseudo-scientific claims, which use portions of science that agree with their pre concieved notions, and disregards all the other science that questions it.

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder." - Carl Sagan

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

But when you equate belief in God as illogical, how can one who believes in God not be offended? What kind of response do you expect them to have? You have just insulted their intelligence, and have set yourself up as a pompus, arrogant prick. Just like a close minded religious person does whenn they attack atheists.

Thats backwards, I am not closed minded for begging them to prove me wrong, or to fulfill the burden of proof for their claims. Thats being openminded, I let them know exactly what it would take to change my mind. Closed mindedness is when you say "there is nothing you can say that will change my mind."

We are ready to change our minds at 1st notice of evidence. What would it take to change theirs? Who are the real closed minded ones?

Pointing out a logical fallacy does not insult someone's intelligence, unless they refuse to address it. I do not prejudge all god claims as illogical, I take them on a case by case basis on the merits of the claim's logic and proof presented alone.

The better way to approach and discuss with people about the short comings of religion, is to leave open the possibility of a higher power, while discussing the shortcoming of religion in general and how it has historically limited mankinds advancement. If you get personal with their belief, its been my experience that you are going to be shut off, and all your evidence that counters their is going to be shut out because you have attacked them personally.

I can do nothing about people mistaking my attacking their logic for attacking their person. People are emotional, but my skepticism does not mean I have a close mind to the possibility of a higher power.

If atheists approached religious discussions as an exchange of ideas, rather than a mental fist fight, they may find that the going is easier

Another misconception, you don't think we hear them out fairly? You really think thats the case, rather than the fact that their arguments are the same tired ones we've heard before, and we only raise our fists when people refuse to address the logical fallacies inherent to such over played arguments.

Instead of trying to shut the door on their belief, just open them to ours and let them walk through on their own accord. If they refuse, there was nothing you could have done in the first place.

We've shut no doors, nor closed our minds off. As for their coming to atheism on their own accord; That is precisely what this article is against.

Atheism is not a thing, nor a state to arrive at, or a religion or philosophy. Its merely a negation of a currently held belief, a negation which offers little comfort. Certainly we cannot convert them all, there are the dyed in the wool faith-heads that will never listen to reason.

Since most people buy into mysticism for the sake of comfort IMO, I think they need to be exposed to reason in order to cease their fence sitting. I believe in the power of reason. I believe if my reasons are good enough, you'll helplessly believe as I do, if you are a rational being capable of changing his mind when faced with new evidence.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

We're not scared of them

The overwhelming majority of atheists only do that in response to religion, you rarely ever see atheists go out and attack religion because they have nothing to do on a Saturday night. If theists would just leave atheists alone, the overwhelming majority of us would never bother thinking about religion again as long as we lived. It's the theist imperative to shove their silly beliefs down the throat of everyone around them that causes the problem.

Thats one of the common misconceptions about us. That we concern ourselves with the beliefs of others far too much. We spend all day worried about the "faith heads."

 

[Summerwind]

Re: Its not the same thing

But it *IS* illogical! If some guy walked up to you with a tin-foil hat on his head and told you about the alien mind control rays, would you tell him he was right and reasonable or would you tell him he was out of his gourd? You're so worried about not offending loony-toon theists but if someone who is wrong walks up to you and insists that they are right, it is your responsibility to correct them. No one has a right not to be offended, that's political correctness at it's worst.

I agree with your premise, but truth be told if a fellow tried to put a tin foil hat on me; I would likely just say he was nuts and move on. The difference is that the religious folks of the world are NOT being ignored and are instead setting laws, setting acceptable precedence, and restricting the rights of non-believers and/or other believers.

So, though I would not try to inform/correct the described nutjob; I feel more than a little compelled to inform/correct/ and humiliate if necessary the religious nut jobs who are daily effecting my life.

 

[WI Crippler]

Apparently you're not very observant then because the religious right is trying (and often succeeding) in using your tax money to fund religious practices and the idiot in the White House has constantly used God as an excuse for irrational action. Even here on DP, there are plenty of topics where the only "defense" is "God said so", combined with threats for not rolling over and blindly believing it.

And yes, believing in an invisible all-powerful imaginary friend in the sky is a silly belief, no matter how you look at it. You simply cannot discuss anything with these people because they're not interested in facts, they know what they believe and everything else can go to hell. They are fanatics of the highest order.

Sounds like someone pissed in your cheerios.

I have always found it, in my experiences discussing things religious, that I have gotten better response by not attacking their belief, but rather by discussing my own non-belief and leaving it to them. Like I said, open doorways for them to explore, rather than slamming theirs in their face. Quit being a prick towards them and they might be willing to entertain an idea or two, which is all it takes to get the ball rolling.

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: Its not the same thing

I agree with your premise, but truth be told if a fellow tried to put a tin foil hat on me; I would likely just say he was nuts and move on. The difference is that the religious folks of the world are NOT being ignored and are instead setting laws, setting acceptable precedence, and restricting the rights of non-believers and/or other believers.

.

What rights of us atheists have been restricted recently??

 

[Summerwind]

Re: We're not scared of them

Thats one of the common misconceptions about us. That we concern ourselves with the beliefs of others far too much. We spend all day worried about the "faith heads."

I am not sure it is entirely a misconception, since many of us atheists are daily interfered with by the faith heads control over our communities. I do worry nearly daily at what they will be able to bully the masses of faithful (who as mentioned above could easily be considered less than intelligent) into supporting.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Thanks nifty

Great thread, Lachean.

My thoughts about this topic are:

1. I love Harris. He's a thoughtful and articulate guy. He challenges things in just the right way. He pushes things towards a better debate.

He certainly the most pleasant and less antagonistic of the "four horsemen." He even begins his lectures with an apology to those he will inadvertently offend. He goes on at length to explain, how he is not being intentionally provocative.

2. It's almost irrelevant. To speak about Dawkins' delivery in the way that DeGrasse did, is merely a critique of tone. It doesn't address the arguments. If Dawkins is derisive, or if Lachean is derisive, ultimately, who cares? That's not all you do. You both make cases, too. I mean we have to wade thru the extra stuff to get to them, but IMO, the arguments should be addressed, and to only say (or to ever say) that "you sound angry or arrogant," isn't an argument. But, sure, it is there. But still.

I think how persuasive, effective or offputting these arguments are is quite relevant, thought not as relevant as their validity.

No one wants to turn off their audience before they get started, else people will write off your arguments without even actually answering them.

3. I can appreciate that atheists (for lack of a better term) want to work on these issues. Bravo.

I think atheists want what we all want, a peaceful civilization that is not threatened by dogmatic bullies. Unfortunately I think to get there we will have to let go of alot of what gives most people comfort.

4. God is at work here.

Had to do it didn't ya?

 

[Summerwind]

Re: Its not the same thing

What rights of us atheists have been restricted recently??

Well, lets see, their is gay marriage issue, and the abortion issue; both under extreme pressure to become "christian" based laws forbidding both.

I personally have been fired for being an atheist and in a "right to work" state there is nothing I can do about it. And, no, I didn't make a point of being an atheist. It came about because during xmas I don't celebrate at all and said such when queried about my holiday plans.

Also the current faith test that all candidates for office seem to need to pass.

Given a while longer I'm sure I can find more. For example, I had to "slow up" a court hearing wherein I was the victim of burglery because of being sworn in. I simply refused to say "so help me god," oh, had same problem at my divorce hearing and I still believe the judge was very "light" on my ex-hub because he was a believer and I wasn't.

Is that enough for now?

 

[bhkad]

Apparently you're not very observant then because the religious right is trying (and often succeeding) in using your tax money to fund religious practices and the idiot in the White House has constantly used God as an excuse for irrational action. Even here on DP, there are plenty of topics where the only "defense" is "God said so", combined with threats for not rolling over and blindly believing it.

And yes, believing in an invisible all-powerful imaginary friend in the sky is a silly belief, no matter how you look at it. You simply cannot discuss anything with these people because they're not interested in facts, they know what they believe and everything else can go to hell. They are fanatics of the highest order.

Just because you'd like to simplify life by reducing it to a ledger sheet of what can be counted, measured, weighed and cyphered doesn't mean that's all there is to this Universe and this Life.

Case in point. Answer me this:

Prove to me with scientific certainty that you love(d) your Mother.

And because you can't then I will go about making sure you don't speak in public of loving your parents. In fact, I will banish all references of parental affection from all government buildings and texts, oaths, pledges and otherwise. Furthermore, Mother's Day and Father's Day will be prohibited.

And that's just a metaphorical start.

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: No point by point rebuttal? Awww

Don't a great many dogmatic beliefs warrant contempt? I can think of quite a few that if spoken out loud may even provoke violence.



"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder." - Carl Sagan

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan



Thats backwards, I am not closed minded for begging them to prove me wrong, or to fulfill the burden of proof for their claims. Thats being openminded, I let them know exactly what it would take to change my mind. Closed mindedness is when you say "there is nothing you can say that will change my mind."

We are ready to change our minds at 1st notice of evidence. What would it take to change theirs? Who are the real closed minded ones?

Pointing out a logical fallacy does not insult someone's intelligence, unless they refuse to address it. I do not prejudge all god claims as illogical, I take them on a case by case basis on the merits of the claim's logic and proof presented alone.



I can do nothing about people mistaking my attacking their logic for attacking their person. People are emotional, but my skepticism does not mean I have a close mind to the possibility of a higher power.



Another misconception, you don't think we hear them out fairly? You really think thats the case, rather than the fact that their arguments are the same tired ones we've heard before, and we only raise our fists when people refuse to address the logical fallacies inherent to such over played arguments.



We've shut no doors, nor closed our minds off. As for their coming to atheism on their own accord; That is precisely what this article is against.

Atheism is not a thing, nor a state to arrive at, or a religion or philosophy. Its merely a negation of a currently held belief, a negation which offers little comfort. Certainly we cannot convert them all, there are the dyed in the wool faith-heads that will never listen to reason.

Since most people buy into mysticism for the sake of comfort IMO, I think they need to be exposed to reason in order to cease their fence sitting. I believe in the power of reason. I believe if my reasons are good enough, you'll helplessly believe as I do, if you are a rational being capable of changing his mind when faced with new evidence.

I hate when people break things down line by line

Basically I agree with you, but its not the content of what you are discussing, its the manner with which you choose to address them that makes all the difference. The reason they feel justified in their beliefs is because science cannot explain all things. So they fill the gaps that science hasn't filled with a god. As science eliminates the gaps, the gods disappear. Its how it has alwas been.

I just don't know how atheists feel so attacked, when, if anything they mostly reside in a culture that has allowed them to flourish beyond anything previously held in the history of mankind....

 

[WI Crippler]

Re: Its not the same thing

Well, lets see, their is gay marriage issue, and the abortion issue; both under extreme pressure to become "christian" based laws forbidding both.

I personally have been fired for being an atheist and in a "right to work" state there is nothing I can do about it. And, no, I didn't make a point of being an atheist. It came about because during xmas I don't celebrate at all and said such when queried about my holiday plans.

Also the current faith test that all candidates for office seem to need to pass.

Given a while longer I'm sure I can find more. For example, I had to "slow up" a court hearing wherein I was the victim of burglery because of being sworn in. I simply refused to say "so help me god," oh, had same problem at my divorce hearing and I still believe the judge was very "light" on my ex-hub because he was a believer and I wasn't.

Is that enough for now?

Gay marriage isn't an atheist issue, its a gay rights issue. Abortion isn't an atheist issue, its a womans right issue.
You can find a lawyer to sue if you are fired for being an atheist.
What faith test??
You can say "I affirm" in a court. I have done so, without holding up any proceeding.