A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_marg]

Was that supposed to be your best effort to put a smiley face on a tolerant atheism?

Gee, "I don't condone him wanting to kill you... but I can understand why he would."

You are taking my words out of context. On message board people insult, attempt to say terrible things as you have done with me. I don't take what you say seriously. It is a possiblity that Mercury was serious but at this stage of the game I don't think so, I think it was more to get a rise out of you. In any event it wasn't appropriate. But then again never are things you have said to me though they were not threats, but they were meant to get a rise none the less.

The fact is atheists are not in danger of Christians. Christians have historically been in danger of atheism, especially when secular governments have imposed legalized persecution of theists.

Ok...give an example of a secular gov't mistreating theists.

previous: You say derogatory things to me which roll off my back. I take none of it seriously

Well that is easy to say when no theists here have threaten to kill you.

Well I agree it is not appropriate to ever threaten death or to threaten physical harm.

[_dartagnan]

Ok...give an example of a secular gov't mistreating theists.

You're kidding right? It is truly scary how so many people are so ignorant of recent history.

I'll just transcribe this for the board, since I just read it the other day. This is from McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion? (pp 77-78)

"In Cambodia Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism. The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and he put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the 'protracted use of violence.' One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so. They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is 'not the smallest evidence' that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve and somewhat sad statement. Dawkins is clearly an ivory-tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-1941. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda - the elimination of religion.

This hardly fits in with another of Dawkins's creedal statements: 'I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldouze Mecca - or chartres, York Minister, or Notre Dame.' Sadly, this noble sentiment is a statement about his personal credulity, not the reality of things. The history of the Soviet Union is replete with the burning and dynamiting of huge numbers of churches. His pleading that atheism is innocent of teh violence and oppression that he associates with religion is simply untenable, and suggests a significant blind spot....Dawkins is simply in denial about the dark side of atheism, making him a less credible critic of religion"

[_marg]

Ok...give an example of a secular gov't mistreating theists.

You're kidding right? It is truly scary how so many people are so ignorant of recent history.

I'll just transcribe this for the board, since I just read it the other day. This is from McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion? (pp 77-78)

"In Cambodia Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism. The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and he put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the 'protracted use of violence.' One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so. They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is 'not the smallest evidence' that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve and somewhat sad statement. Dawkins is clearly an ivory-tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-1941. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda - the elimination of religion.

This hardly fits in with another of Dawkins's creedal statements: 'I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldouze Mecca - or chartres, York Minister, or Notre Dame.' Sadly, this noble sentiment is a statement about his personal credulity, not the reality of things. The history of the Soviet Union is replete with the burning and dynamiting of huge numbers of churches. His pleading that atheism is innocent of the violence and oppression that he associates with religion is simply untenable, and suggests a significant blind spot....Dawkins is simply in denial about the dark side of atheism, making him a less credible critic of religion"

Ok are there any on here who have the energy and knowledge to comment on this. Good K? I'm tired and I would have to do research on Pol Pot. (and no Kevin that doesn't just mean the internet or wiki) If no one does Kevin then I'll have to do some research, but not tonight.

[_dartagnan]

Even in High School, before the Berlin wall came down, I remember being taught this stuff. Our Political Science teacher told us that the Soviet Union indoctrinated their people by telling them the West used religion as a tool to keep the poor low, but happy. Religion was never tolerated over there, and we're talking about a country of almost 400 million at the time.

[_Ren]

I can't wait till that day when we can put a bullet in the head of every corn pone faith-based bigot out there when they try to take america "for god". You are one of those individuals.

If this comment is a joke, then it's a bad joke.
If it's not a joke, then this is exactly the kind of attitude that I want absolutely no part of, and no association with.

Ironically, I'm quite sure that Dawkins would not want to be associated with it either.


When it comes to the 'science' of Atheism, I think Dawkins is spot on. He articulates the arguments very well and he knows his stuff.
But when it comes to his critique of religion and his understanding of religion on a practical level - I do find Dawkins a tad naïve. I already went over some of my reasons for that appraisal in the 'other thread'.

I get the impression that Dawkins got pissed off by Creationists in relation to attacks on Evolution - and that this 'conflict' led him eventually to see all religion as a 'problem'. I don't think he 'objectively' viewed religion dispassionately over a period of time and started off on his 'campaign' against religion on 'his own steam'. He was more 'pushed' into it - mainly by the creationists / ID-ers that were vexing him in his scientific sphere.
That is the distinct impression I have - after seeing several interviews with him.

I think Dawkins 'naïveté' on religion is demonstrated in the discussion linked to:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6&hl=en-GB
...between Dawkins and McGrath.
I actually give most of the discussion to Dawkins. Because most of the discussion deals with the best way to analyse empirical reality. Dawkins is on solid ground here - and takes McGrath to task.

I found the middle section a little 'irrelevant'. Dawkins didn't like the macabre nature of the crucifixion. Well, that's away from Dawkins own point - it doesn't matter what the judgement of the truth is, it matters if it is true or not. That was his own point, and yet he seems to move away from it in the middle...


But I think at 54 mins, McGrath becomes the one mainly speaking sense, and I see a bit of Dawkins naïveté coming to the fore. He wants to completely remove Stalins atheism and anti-religious views from what he did - as if they had no bearing whatsoever. That is naïve - and I have no problem saying it. There is no doubt in my mind that McGrath is far more correct in his judgments and his observations in this last section of the interview.
Dawkins states that the kind of rational conversation McGrath and himself were having was "antithetical' to faith. And yet McGrath is there having the conversation - and he is faithful - therefore by the very act of turning up he is making it clear that Dawkins can only be talking about a certain 'type' of faith...

Oh wow, a convenient echo chamber. Yea, we're sure to learn plenty.

I watched the discussion expecting to learn more about the opinions of a few people.
Nothing more.

This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda - the elimination of religion.

The 'elimination of religion' is not an 'atheist agenda'. It is on the agenda of 'some atheists'. Quite a different statement.

I'd like to get some input from the rational thinking atheists here.

Ahh - so you don't want 'idiots' replying then. Got ya.

[_Some Schmo]

For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.

Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.

But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.

The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.

Is this supposed to be an example of McGrath "dismantling" Dawkins argument? LOL

The only difference between god and Santa Claus is that there are several adults who believe in god. Coming to believe in god in adulthood says nothing for it's truth value; it's more of a commentary on how some adults can be lured into believing a fantasy on the strength of others that already have that fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. That some adults assume the belief as adults is a sad commentary on those adults, not a positive commentary on god belief.

Of course people are going to criticize Dawkins. Nobody likes to have their imaginary friend taken away.

"Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor." I bet he'd like to believe that, but the truth is more likely that they couldn't find a "responsible, informed Christian."

hehehe

[_Moniker]

Well, I'm critical of both Dawkins and Harris -- they're not dispelling any of my imaginary friends. I just don't think they're very compelling and am not fond of their style.

I find Dennett much more compelling. I think anyone that isn't already is lock-step agreement with their views would be more influenced by Dennett than Dawkins or Harris.

Do I care they do what they do? Nah. Do I think they should change? Nah. Do I think they're effective in preaching past anyone in their choir? Nope.

[_GoodK]

Ok are there any on here who have the energy and knowledge to comment on this. Good K? I'm tired and I would have to do research on Pol Pot. (and no Kevin that doesn't just mean the internet or wiki) If no one does Kevin then I'll have to do some research, but not tonight.

Sure, but let me say I've already sort of addressed this in a discussion which Kevin participated in.
He knows what he's doing, but here:

But we can't say an 'atheist' has done this, or an 'atheist' has done that. Right?
...cos that's 'against the rules'?

Sure, religious people have been doing it for decades. I have actually never observed or participated in a debate between a believer and non-believer where Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler wasn't brought up as a case against atheism. It's obviously not against the rules, but it is nonsensical and beside the point anyways. There is nothing about a lack of belief in God that should compel someone to behave unethically

The problem with Pol Pot is that he was not evil because he was too skeptical, too reasonable, or too secular.

But I'm sort of tired of being forced to defend Pol Pot, considering it's not even really an argument.

This really is one of the great canards of religious discourse, the idea that the greatest crimes of the 20th century were perpetrated because of atheism. The core problem for me is divisive dogmatism. There are many kinds of dogmatism. There's nationalism, there's tribalism, there's racism, there's chauvinism. And there's religion. Religion is the only sphere of discourse where dogma is actually a good word, where it is considered ennobling to believe something strongly based on faith.

Auschwitz, the Societ gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia are not examples of what happens to people when they become too reasonable. To the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of political and racial dogmatism... The problem with religion--as with Nazism, Stalinism, or any other totalitarian mythology-- is the problem of dogma itself. I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, I'm critical of both Dawkins and Harris -- they're not dispelling any of my imaginary friends. I just don't think they're very compelling and am not fond of their style.

I find Dennett much more compelling. I think anyone that isn't already is lock-step agreement with their views would be more influenced by Dennett than Dawkins or Harris. They appear extreme to me, often, and I'm not fond of zealots -- no matter where they lie on their stances. Do I care they do what they do? Nah. Do I think they should change? Nah. Do I think they're effective in preaching past anyone in their choir? Nope.

Well, sure, nobody's perfect, but these guys claim to have received correspondence from people who say they have been persuaded by Dawkins' and Harris' books (in the video I linked in the OP). I can understand why they may turn you off, but that doesn't make them non-persuasive to others. Thank goodness there are other guys like Dennett who do appeal to the people Harris and Dawkins lose due to style.

I actually think Harris is the most persuasive of the four, but I have tremendous respect for all of them.

[_Ren]

Do I think they're effective in preaching past anyone in their choir? Nope.

I think the Dawkins types do reach outside the choir - a bit. I know that Dawkins has had letters and e-mails from people who have at least 'claimed' to have been 'swayed'. But they probably turn 'off' as many as they turn 'on' at the same time. They might actually 'build faith' for many. (They provide the example of the 'bad' atheists that no decent religious person would want to be like...)

I think you may well be right that Dennett's approach - overall - is probably more effective, numbers wise. I've got a feeling it might be. Although I found his comments at the beginning of the discussion interesting, where he was talking about actually making distinct efforts to get his ideas across in as non-confrontational a manner as he could, but that he still seemed to get plenty of 'hate' thrown at him anyway!
...so - as he said - in the end, you're claiming that what they believe is wrong. That idea - to many - is offensive in and of itself.