The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

[_dartagnan]

Who asked for this?

Jersey Girl said: "I'd like to see some evidence of organized Atheists. Could you supply at least 3 examples?"

I simply provided.

Of course there are organized atheists

Yes, of course there are.

and that is why I keep arguing that atheism isn't a word or label we should associate with.

That makes no sense. It didn't make much sense when Sam Harris tried to sell it either. If you don't want to associate with it, then fine. Obviously many atheists do want to associate with it. They join these organizations. But unnamed organizations are organizations nonetheless. Dawkins and Harris are starting their own brand of atheism that is rather antagonistic.

It allows for threads like this to spin in circles with talks of words that describe nothing...

That's not what's going on at all.

[_beastie]

Before I visited MAD a year ago I hadn't read Dennett, Dawkins, or Harris. I saw references and picked up a few books. I was giggling and making notes through those books as I saw the same arguments I'd been reading almost verbatim. Yet, again, that doesn't make a dogma -- merely it's a good argument and it will be used over and over again.

I wonder if those that grew up in LDS are more likely to have a more (can't think of a real appropriate way to say this) angry response to their former faith and other religions? Beastie was a convert and seems to line up with a lot of my thoughts on religion. I'm more of a Beastie type of atheist.

I'm such a follower -- she does the critical thinking for me! ;)

Heh. I'll take you seriously as a follower when I start gettin' those tithing checks!!

I do think you may be correct, that BIC exmormons tend to have a somewhat different reaction to their LDS experience than converts, particularly if their childhood memories were also problematic. It does make sense, too - they never had a choice, and were usually aggressively pushed towards certain life choices - like going on a mission.

[_beastie]

Dawkins and Harris are starting their own brand of atheism that is rather antagonistic.

I can accept that. However, given that the only thing that unites all atheists is the lack of belief in any god - and while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us - and adding up all those small numbers results in one very big number. So I really don't think it's too much to ask that posters who wish to criticize what specific atheists are saying that you are more specific and careful with your language to reflect that fact.

by the way, since I didn't get an answer about what your source meant about "stopping darwin doubters" on this thread I'm starting a new one on it. I hope to get a response from you, Kevin, since it was your source, and since you seem to be saying that atheists would be willing to use the force of law and even violence to stop religion.

[_Chap]

This thread is called "The Intellectual Crudity of Non-theist Apologists", but I find it difficult to see how much of the material that has been posted is strictly relevant to that topic.

Early on in the thread, I addressed the topic issue as directly as I could in the following post:

I am an atheist.

Do I make a career of presenting my atheism (and attacking theism) in a popularised and attention-grabbing form on TV and in books designed for a mass audience? No. I don't have the time, and there are other priorities to which I am committed. What is more, I should feel uncomfortable having to present my views in sound-bite form, and without being able to add the precautionary and conditional phrasing that helps me reduce the possibility of people misunderstanding me.

Do I feel remotely disturbed when I see others presenting atheism and attacking theism in a popular way, with all the compromises and sometimes crudities of presentation that can involve? No. That is simply a consequence of the fact that we live in a free society, and a free society in which atheism is becoming a more and more normal and acknowledged part of our culture - just in the same way that popularised and often crude presentations of theist positions in mass media are a consequence of the fact that theism is a normal and acknowledged part of our culture.

What would people like to see changed about this situation?

I do think it might focus the discussion if people would take a moment to post a response to the question I asked at the end of my post.

Otherwise we seem doomed to go round in circles with one lot saying "I can find examples of stupid/malevolent/organised atheists" while the other side responds with "I can find even more examples of stupid/malevolent/organised theists". Neither kind of evidence seems to me either unexpected or particularly interesting, except to those who enjoy the incidental ad hominems that this kind of exchange encourages.

[_Tarski]

Is there a directly line from that pure lack to violence? How does that work?

The same as how religious violence works. You begin with the necessary elements:

1. a belief (scientism/materialism/Religions are dangerous, etc)
2. that special feeling (I know something most humans don't. I'm more evolved than those primitive thinking theists)
3. a sense of purpose (I'm going to be proactive in getting others to be like me - it will be better for society, after all)
4. source of authority (Dawkins/Harris/Dennett/Hitchens)

Well atheism isn't scientism. Religions are dangerous and this belief is based on ....drum role.....evidence.

Finally, I asked you before what materialism was. I'll ask again as I did before.

"Explain to me what you mean by materialism and how it is a dogma?

In the universe we have material forces acting between material bodies. By material, I mean that which is composed of fundamental particles, both what we usually call matter, as well as the force carriers like photons and other gauge bosons.
Then we might include spacetime itself although this would be included in the force carrying particle category if we could detect gravitons. (all of this could be superceded by a better theory of matter and energy)

Then we have all the things that can live on top of matter and energy as patterns: biological organization, information, software, societies, love affairs, striving etc. These are recognizable patterns in the dance of matter and have a reality though not an independent reality.

Now if you say that this is materialism then all I can say is where and what is the other stuff? And, why shouldn't it be referred to as matter or energy should you somehow display it?"

[_Tal Bachman]

There is so much going on here that it's hard to keep track...

Obviously I may be biased, but I don't see how GoodK or anyone else has shown where I've gotten something wrong. That might be because I'm too dumb to recognize it; or simply because they haven't. Regardless, I'd like to know if I'm wrong, so here is a nutshell version of some of my views on this for easier refutation:

POINT 1.)

"Belief systems" (regardless of how they treat the god question):

1.) Can have more or less evidentiary warrant overall than another;

2.) Can have wide variation in content and resultant behavioral implications;

3.) Can end up justifying or encouraging everything from the most virtuous, to the most vicious acts.

POINT 2.)

1.) There is such a thing as functional, or adaptive, (evidentially) unwarranted beliefs (in fact, it is difficult [as Dawkins inadvertently shows] to account for a religious impulse seemingly endemic in humanity without at least conceding that a whole range of unwarranted beliefs are not maladaptive). Thus, we would have a hard time predicting, given the wide variation of human circumstances and psyches, whether a claim would lead to good or evil, dogma or non-dogma, simply by knowing only whether that claim is evidentially warranted or not. This suggests that what is important about a belief, in terms of its relationship to behavioral outcomes, is not whether it is theist or non-theist.

POINT 3.)

1.) To be non-theist only means that one is skeptical about one particular claim: that there is a god (and I suppose, its directly penumbral claims). Therefore, while non-theism is the result of skepticism, it cannot be considered equivalent to skepticism in general. (Yet it is actually "skepticism in general" which Harris concedes he is actually, or should be explicitly, talking about in the quote posted by GoodK).

For as every fair person must admit, acknowledging that a belief in an interventionist god is evidentially unwarranted confers on the acknowledger no immunity from simultaneously maintaining other beliefs which are just as evidentially unwarranted (and which may be more destructive than anything built upon a specifically theist belief). Examples could include the beliefs that "my race is way better than yours", "girls are better than boys", "we all have inalienable rights" (where's the evidence for that?), "all acts are selfish", "tomorrow will be my lucky day", "global capitalism is evil", "everything happens for a reason", "what goes around, comes around", "ideal justice is equivalent to equal socioeconomic outcomes", and four zillion other beliefs which have no evidence supporting them at all.

PARTIAL CONCLUSION

The argument that skepticism in general would lead to the moral progress of mankind DOES seem to have something going for it; but substituting "skepticism" with "non-theism" in that argument, has little or nothing going for it at all.

After all, as I think I have shown above in my chain of syllogisms, evidentially warranted beliefs about god (like that he ain't there, or that if he is, he ain't doing anything) can form part of, or even fundamentally subserve or serve as a premise for, "belief systems" which can just as easily motivate bad actions as good ones.

It is not that "disbelieving in God" is a "belief system". This, like all straw men, is ludicrous. It is that in the minds of many folks, it is rather good logic that a number of things follow from the insight that there is no good reason to believe that there is a god; and further, it is that there is no good reason to suspect that those things that follow an evidentially-warranted premise of non-theism will lead to any more or less good or evil, than from the evidentially UNwarranted premise that there IS a god.

(I happen to think that the last century furnishes excellent examples of this).

A SUBSEQUENT CONCLUSION

Harris, Dawkins, et al, are humane men who sincerely long for a better world, where grand, violent madness no longer occurs; where humans no longer war against each other because of which unevidenced beliefs they hold; etc.

But they have gotten things backward. It wasn't so much the unwarranted belief in God that caused the lunacy, as it was the lunacy that caused the unwarranted belief in God. Another way of saying this is that even if we could wave a magic wand and eradicate delusional beliefs in an interventionist sky god tonight, tomorrow morning new delusional beliefs would have already begun to pop up to fill the void, and justify and encourage the same sorts of madness. Solving the problem of human evil just isn't as simple as these men wish it to be.

I suggest that it wasn't some floating super-meme which made us tribal, or social, or fearful, or hierarchical, or proud, or damn f*cking crazy. It was in us all along - WE created religion; it didn't create us.

I understand there's a South Park episode which makes just the same point and has atheists fighting amongst each other over who's atheist enough, though I haven't seen it. If so, I think (once again) they've nailed something profound about human nature.

It is sadly naïve, Utopian in the most pathetic way, to imagine, like John Lennon, that if we could just get rid of this damned belief in heaven and hell, that we would all be able to live in peace and harmony, etc. Increasing skepticism might do that - but as I hope I've shown, skepticism cannot be taken to mean non-theism. (The whole project is like trying to reduce "violence" by banning pit bulls. It's just not that simple).

To paraphrase James Madison, the seeds of vice are sown in the nature of man. They manifest themselves in, and are magnified by, theist beliefs, just as much as in and by non-theist beliefs.

I've run out of time, more later.

[_marg]

But they have gotten things backward. It wasn't so much the unwarranted belief in God that caused the lunacy, as it was the lunacy that caused the unwarranted belief in God. Another way of saying this is that even if we could wave a magic wand and eradicate delusional beliefs in an interventionist sky god tonight, tomorrow morning new delusional beliefs would have already begun to pop up to fill the void, and justify and encourage the same sorts of madness. Solving the problem of human evil just isn't as simple as these men wish it to be.

Yes but religion is backed by Big Business billion dollar organizations and/or has worked in concert with rulers and Gov'ts. In addition religion starts early indoctrination, so people who otherwise would never believe as adults such irrational ideas, or accept without question a religious authority, get programmed from a young age to accept without questioning. What Dawkins et all are doing ..are speaking out against organizations which have enjoyed extreme protection from criticism. I haven't read their works but if there is no foundation to what they say, it is unlikely what they say will have any impact.

I suggest that it wasn't some floating super-meme which made us tribal, or social, or fearful, or hierarchical, or proud, or damn f*cking crazy. It was in us all along - WE created religion; it didn't create us.

Yes but Dawkins is not saying it isn't in us. It is, but criticizing the irrational aspects of religion, is one way of raising consciousness about religion in particular. Perhaps many people have never questioned their religious upbringing.

One could take the pessimistic view and think people are just all idiots and so any discussion with them to get them to reason is a waste of time or one could be optimistic and think that people just need some consciousness raising, perhaps even improvement in the educational system to teach critical thinking.

[_dartagnan]

beastie,

while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us - and adding up all those small numbers results in one very big number.

Sounds like a Mormon argument about LDS numbers. Not sure what your point is, though.

So I really don't think it's too much to ask that posters who wish to criticize what specific atheists are saying that you are more specific and careful with your language to reflect that fact.

Again, if you don't consider yourself among them, then that's fine. I think I have done what I can to clarify I'm not speaking of every atheist on the planet.

Having said that, you are on an internet forum taking sides as an atheist, which seems to fly in the face of your implication that you have absolutely nothing to do with these organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society.

by the way, since I didn't get an answer about what your source meant about "stopping darwin doubters" on this thread I'm starting a new one on it. I hope to get a response from you, Kevin, since it was your source, and since you seem to be saying that atheists would be willing to use the force of law and even violence to stop religion.

Not sure why you expect me to know what someone else meant by something he said. I guess you could email the guy and request elaboration. But I think it has already been established that atheists would use force and even violence to stop religion. Why wouldn't they?

However, given that the only thing that unites all atheists is the lack of belief in any god

But organized atheists are untied by much more than that. They are united in a common cause: get rid of religion from our society.

and while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us

Atheists have had it easy compared to hatred and discrimination handed out to theists. What's your point?

So I really don't think it's too much to ask that posters who wish to criticize what specific atheists are saying that you are more specific and careful with your language to reflect that fact.

I've been careful. The issue here is whether organized theism is any different from organized atheism, in their capacity to promote good or evil. From a sociological perspective, the answer is no. From a statistical perspective, the answer is no.


Tarski,

Well atheism isn't scientism

Yes, I'm aware of that. But atheists who organize themselves under a common cause tend to cling to scientism and/or materialism.

Religions are dangerous and this belief is based on ....drum role.....evidence.

No it isn't. Religions can be dangerous, but to say "religions" in a generalize way is simply wrong.

Finally, I asked you before what materialism was. I'll ask again as I did before. "Explain to me what you mean by materialism and how it is a dogma?

First of all, it is accurately called dogma, as I use it in its simplest form; meaning an established opinion, principle or belief laid down as authoritative. Dogmas don't only come from theistic organizations (i.e. political dogma). Dogmas are forwarded in the church of academia. They are presented as authoritative. Secondly, I understand materialism to be a belief that anything that truly exists is either matter, or dependent on matter. Given this dogmatic premise, the existence of God is impossible. The supernatural realm is impossible, which precludes the existence of the human soul.

Then we have all the things that can live on top of matter and energy as patterns: biological organization, information, software, societies, love affairs, striving etc. These are recognizable patterns in the dance of matter and have a reality though not an independent reality.

Exactly, not independent.

Now if you say that this is materialism then all I can say is where and what is the other stuff?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the existence of the human spirit or soul and the human consciousness. Materialists like Dennet try to argue that humans are just machines like a computer. Of course, as a materialist, he has little choice but to see us as mere machines. But this is another discussion that deserves its own thread. Right now I just want to establish the fact that there is dogma that resonate with many atheists. When atheists organize themselves in groups, they become fundamentally identical to theistic organizations.

marg,

Yes but religion is backed by Big Business billion dollar organizations

Yet, abortion remains legal, home schooling was recently outlawed in California, etc. So much for being backed by "Big Business." Being openly religious in politics means you're automatically less likely to get your way. The religious right tries to even those odds out, but to no avail.

and/or has worked in concert with rulers and Gov'ts

So has atheism. So what?

In addition religion starts early indoctrination

Gross generalization. Most theists are converts, even in Churches like Mormonism. While indoctrination occurs for children raised in religious households, this represents only a fraction of theists worldwise.

so people who otherwise would never believe as adults such irrational ideas

Is this really an atheistic argument? This pipe dream. What makes you think people who were raised religiously, would have otherwise rejected the existence of God? Theism and religion are not the same. The vast majority of humanity accepts teh existence of God because of his or her experience in the world. Whether or not he or she becomes religious in any given denomination, is a matter independent of theism.

or accept without question a religious authority,

Like Dawkins? He is an authority accepted by atheists who think he must be right because he is a smart guy. Rarely do I meet a fan who actually understands his arguments well enough to defend them. The rest just accept his claims as valid without really trying to understand what he's saying. I see a lot of blind acceptance here without the slightest hint of skepticism or questioning when it comes to these characters (Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens). Many here have an axe to grind with religion, and its music to yoru ears to hear people in the scientific community join in on the parade. So they're accepted without question.

get programmed from a young age to accept without questioning.

This is such stupid rhetoric. The idea of programming or brainwashing has been thoroughly discredited.

What Dawkins et all are doing ..are speaking out against organizations which have enjoyed extreme protection from criticism.

What a bunch of bunk. Extreme protection from criticism? Yea! In a country where an "artistic" rendition of the Virgin Mary is decorated with semen and feces, yet very little protest ensues, only goes to show how well religion is "extremely protected" in the west. In a country where a Catholic Church in San Francisco is invaded by a bunch of fruity gays dressed up in drag while catching the priest by surprise during a service as he is passing out the sacrament, yet no reprecussions result for those who intentionally mocked the religion, only goes to show how well religion is "extremely protected" in the west.

The reason Dawkins' movie "Religion: Root of all Evil?" wasn't aired in the US had everything to do with the fact that it was unscholarly and geared to be divisive. Even atheists on his side were criticizing him for his stupid arguments, and Dawkins himself even admitted he didn't like the title of the movie, but the producers refused to budge. The most they would do was to put a question mark at the end. Because you see, they wanted a national spotlight and controversy. That's the stuff that gets ratings, meaning money.

but criticizing the irrational aspects of religion, is one way of raising consciousness about religion in particular.

I guess Dawkins' next stop is to extend his biological jargon to answer racial issues. I can seeyour defense of him now... "criticizing the high crime among negros is just one way of raising consiousness about negros in particular."

[_Tarski]

beastie,

while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us - and adding up all those small numbers results in one very big number.

Sounds like a Mormon argument about LDS numbers. Not sure what your point is, though.

So I really don't think it's too much to ask that posters who wish to criticize what specific atheists are saying that you are more specific and careful with your language to reflect that fact.

Again, if you don't consider yourself among them, then that's fine. I think I have done what I can to clarify I'm not speaking of every atheist on the planet.

Having said that, you are on an internet forum taking sides as an atheist, which seems to fly in the face of your implication that you have absolutely nothing to do with these organized atheistic efforts to cull religion from society.

by the way, since I didn't get an answer about what your source meant about "stopping darwin doubters" on this thread I'm starting a new one on it. I hope to get a response from you, Kevin, since it was your source, and since you seem to be saying that atheists would be willing to use the force of law and even violence to stop religion.

Not sure why you expect me to know what someone else meant by something he said. I guess you could email the guy and request elaboration. But I think it has already been established that atheists would use force and even violence to stop religion. Why wouldn't they?

However, given that the only thing that unites all atheists is the lack of belief in any god

But organized atheists are untied by much more than that. They are united in a common cause: get rid of religion from our society.

and while we may be in the minority world-wide, we exist everywhere, in every culture, sometimes hidden due to the discrimination and hatred of theists towards us

Atheists have had it easy compared to hatred and discrimination handed out to theists. What's your point?

So I really don't think it's too much to ask that posters who wish to criticize what specific atheists are saying that you are more specific and careful with your language to reflect that fact.

I've been careful. The issue here is whether organized theism is any different from organized atheism, in their capacity to promote good or evil. From a sociological perspective, the answer is no. From a statistical perspective, the answer is no.


Tarski,

Well atheism isn't scientism

Yes, I'm aware of that. But atheists who organize themselves under a common cause tend to cling to scientism and/or materialism.

Religions are dangerous and this belief is based on ....drum role.....evidence.

No it isn't. Religions can be dangerous, but to say "religions" in a generalize way is simply wrong.

Finally, I asked you before what materialism was. I'll ask again as I did before. "Explain to me what you mean by materialism and how it is a dogma?

First of all, it is accurately called dogma, as I use it in its simplest form; meaning an established opinion, principle or belief laid down as authoritative. Dogmas don't only come from theistic organizations (I.e. political dogma). Dogmas are forwarded in the church of academia. They are presented as authoritative. Secondly, I understand materialism to be a belief that anything that truly exists is either matter, or dependent on matter. Given this dogmatic premise, the existence of God is impossible. The supernatural realm is impossible, which precludes the existence of the human soul.

Then we have all the things that can live on top of matter and energy as patterns: biological organization, information, software, societies, love affairs, striving etc. These are recognizable patterns in the dance of matter and have a reality though not an independent reality.

Exactly, not independent.

Now if you say that this is materialism then all I can say is where and what is the other stuff?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the existence of the human spirit or soul and the human consciousness.

I would like someone to flesh this out. What is spirit? Is it some kind of stuff? No, it can't be because that's all that is meant by "matter"- whatever it is that is out there in the spatiotemporal universe.
Science can accept any entity or force for which there is strong evidence. For now, spirit is just a word from the ancient past that captures animistic thinking. If there is something new to be discovered, it will not likely match up with prescientific categories. But I am not dogmatic about it. I just want a reason to believe other than wishful thinking or raw intuition. I would also like some clarity about what is being asserted!

[_marg]

.

marg,

Yes but religion is backed by Big Business billion dollar organizations

Yet, abortion remains legal, home schooling was recently outlawed in California, etc. So much for being backed by "Big Business." Being openly religious in politics means you're automatically less likely to get your way. The religious right tries to even those odds out, but to no avail.

My comment was related to Tal's in which he was arguing in essence that people are innately lunatics rather than religion turns them into lunatics.

So why I mentioned religions were big business iswith lots of money, some in the billions, they can afford to market their lunatic ideas, and make the ideas seem respectable rather than a pathetic joke as some of the ideas really are. They can fund all sorts of promotional endeavours...universities, books, buildings/ places of worship. They can make the nonsensical appear respectable. They can pay the clergy, keep the whole facade going with money. With the financial power backing them they have the respect of heads of state. So that's the sort of thing I was trying to get at.

If religion didn't yield power and financial wealth for those in charge, who are highly motivated to be a part of it, I doubt religious organizations would be successful, because the marketing for followers would not be there, nor the motivation to get followers. I'm not saying that is how Christianity started out, but that is what it became..a quest for power, control, money.

previous: and/or has worked in concert with rulers and Gov'ts

So has atheism. So what?

Again my comment has to do with one of the reasons why religion is sucessful despite the fact it promotes lunatic ideas, it has had the support of those in power.

previous: In addition religion starts early indoctrination

Gross generalization. Most theists are converts, even in Churches like Mormonism. While indoctrination occurs for children raised in religious households, this represents only a fraction of theists worldwise.

You are either dreaming or you are BS'ing.

previous: so people who otherwise would never believe as adults such irrational ideas

Is this really an atheistic argument? This pipe dream. What makes you think people who were raised religiously, would have otherwise rejected the existence of God? Theism and religion are not the same. The vast majority of humanity accepts the existence of God because of his or her experience in the world. Whether or not he or she becomes religious in any given denomination, is a matter independent of theism.

Two points here Kevin, one you are going off on a tangent of theism when my comment only talked about religion. Second my comment was a response to Tal's. I'm thinking of lunatic ideas like Jesus dying for mankind's sins..that sort of stuff. You may not appreciate it is a lunatic idea, principally a pagan one used in Christianity but none the less I do.

I do think we are a product of our culture and upbringing and the reason for most people's religious beliefs stems from that, not from one's own ideas derived critically and independently.

previous: or accept without question a religious authority,

Like Dawkins? He is an authority accepted by atheists who think he must be right because he is a smart guy. Rarely do I meet a fan who actually understands his arguments well enough to defend them. The rest just accept his claims as valid without really trying to understand what he's saying. I see a lot of blind acceptance here without the slightest hint of skepticism or questioning when it comes to these characters (Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens). Many here have an axe to grind with religion, and its music to yoru ears to hear people in the scientific community join in on the parade. So they're accepted without question.

Yes I've heard you say this many times. I suppose once I start to read these guys then anything I say I'll be accused of taking from them. I've yet to hear anyone tell me what they say that is all that daft. I don't even think the meme idea is daft. It is about replication and evolution, that it can occur in other things besides genes. The concepts can be applied to language development, ideas, customs etc.

previous: get programmed from a young age to accept without questioning.

This is such stupid rhetoric. The idea of programming or brainwashing has been thoroughly discredited.

Really then why do we have smart people as an example, like BC Space arguing that he can accept evolution because there is no church revelation preventing him from doing so. His argument is basically as long as the church allows him to, he can do his own thinking but when the church tells him they have a revelation on a particular matter then his right to think ends. He has been programmed to accept without question Church authority re revelations.

previous: What Dawkins et all are doing ..are speaking out against organizations which have enjoyed extreme protection from criticism.[

What a bunch of bunk. Extreme protection from criticism? Yea! In a country where an "artistic" rendition of the Virgin Mary is decorated with semen and feces, yet very little protest ensues, only goes to show how well religion is "extremely protected" in the west. In a country where a Catholic Church in San Francisco is invaded by a bunch of fruity gays dressed up in drag while catching the priest by surprise during a service as he is passing out the sacrament, yet no reprecussions result for those who intentionally mocked the religion, only goes to show how well religion is "extremely protected" in the west.

You have a limited perspective Kevin. I was referring to Christianity historically. Currently people can speak out against the church..though there still is lots of pressure not to..ie. in politics. And of course Muslims are not allowed to speak out against their religion.
As an atheist, in general I don't speak out in social settings, most of the time it is not politically correct. Doesn't make for pleasant conversation. Though in my life the majority of people I have associated with are not religious. My husband worked in the science field and most people in it are not religious..at least not the ones my husband befriended. And my family and my husband's are not religious.

The reason Dawkins' movie "Religion: Root of all Evil?" wasn't aired in the US had everything to do with the fact that it was unscholarly and geared to be divisive. Even atheists on his side were criticizing him for his stupid arguments, and Dawkins himself even admitted he didn't like the title of the movie, but the producers refused to budge. The most they would do was to put a question mark at the end. Because you see, they wanted a national spotlight and controversy. That's the stuff that gets ratings, meaning money.

Well I saw it in Canada..there was no big deal made about it. And I see no reason why it shouldn't have aired in the U.S. At the time I had some critical thoughts about his argument and how he was expressing himself but I don't remember now what my reasons were.

previous: but criticizing the irrational aspects of religion, is one way of raising consciousness about religion in particular.

I guess Dawkins' next stop is to extend his biological jargon to answer racial issues. I can seeyour defense of him now... "criticizing the high crime among negros is just one way of raising consiousness about negros in particular."

It is not a critics fault Kevin that organized religions have some hum-dinger stupid and/or utterly false or fraudulent ideas that they promote. If religions were all on the up and up...all about truth and meant to help rather than control and use people...then any criticisms against them would be meaningless.