Atheist attacks Christopher Hitchens

[drumdude]

If certain Mormon apologists were to be believed, your typical atheist is just as dogmatic as your typical Mormon. One popular Mormon apologist, DCP, is so focused on Christopher Hitchens that he ends every blog post in his name.

So you might be surprised to find that atheists actually aren’t so dogmatic. That they would even create an entire video criticizing their hero’s worst arguments:

https://youtu.be/fopo9E7UAVQ

Imagine if some of Mormonism’s most faithful apologists released a similar video about the faults of their prophets! They wouldn’t, of course, and that undermines their constant argument that atheists are “just as dogmatic as we are.”

No atheist is going to be shunned for criticizing atheism or atheists. No atheist dogma is being upheld. No atheist discussion is off limits, and no atheist leaders are safe from criticism. Mormonism, on the other hand, demands you never criticize the leaders. Never criticize their dogma. And never discuss certain topics. Lest you be shunned.

I hope, but am not holding my breath, that this ends DCP’s tendency to equate atheism and religion. They are not the same.

[malkie]

No atheist is going to be shunned for criticizing atheism or atheists. No atheist dogma is being upheld. No atheist discussion is off limits, and no atheist leaders are safe from criticism. Mormonism, on the other hand, demands you never criticize the leaders. Never criticize their dogma. And never discuss certain topics. Lest you be shunned.

(my emphasis)
Yeah, OK - but what if the criticism is true?

Oh, wait, ...

[Physics Guy]

Maybe Hitchens is, like, the atheist Pope, and this other one is, like, a Protestant atheist?

I don't think atheism is a religion, though there may be some atheists who kind of make it one. Religious disagreement among adherents of the same umbrella religious group is kind of notorious, though. So the fact that not all atheists agree is hardly a proof that atheism is not a religion. If anything, it's one of the ways in which atheism does resemble a religion.

[Dr. Shades]

So the fact that not all atheists agree is hardly a proof that atheism is not a religion. If anything, it's one of the ways in which atheism does resemble a religion.

If atheism is a form of religion, then infertility is a form of parenthood.

[Kishkumen]

If atheism is a form of religion, then infertility is a form of parenthood.

It certainly can be if you adopt.

[drumdude]

If atheism is a form of religion, then infertility is a form of parenthood.

It certainly can be if you adopt.

Being childless is probably what Shades was going for.

[Rivendale]

It certainly can be if you adopt.

Being childless is probably what Shades was going for.

Non stamp collecting is a hobby or bald as a hair style is the way I usually hear the comparisons.

[Kishkumen]

Non stamp collecting is a hobby or bald as a hair style is the way I usually hear the comparisons.

Yeah, I never understood any of this. Apatheism might be a better comparison. Anyone who goes around arguing there is no god from a position of some conviction has a view and commitment that I would call religious. Being religious does not depend on believing in a deity.

[Rivendale]

Non stamp collecting is a hobby or bald as a hair style is the way I usually hear the comparisons.

Yeah, I never understood any of this. Apatheism might be a better comparison. Anyone who goes around arguing there is no god from a position of some conviction has a view and commitment that I would call religious. Being religious does not depend on believing in a deity.

I agree that argumentative approaches claiming there is no god (Aron Ra, an exmormon, comes to mind) has adopted an ideology similar to a religion. However atheism (as I understand it) is just the rejection of the evidence presented. It doesn't make the positive claim. I am sure the phrase the "burden of proof resides with the positive claim" has been said here often. For me as I age it seems redundant. But it can make for interesting discussions.

[drumdude]

Non stamp collecting is a hobby or bald as a hair style is the way I usually hear the comparisons.

Yeah, I never understood any of this. Apatheism might be a better comparison. Anyone who goes around arguing there is no god from a position of some conviction has a view and commitment that I would call religious. Being religious does not depend on believing in a deity.

There’s a lot of subtle nuance in the views which commonly gets lost. Especially when both sides are trying to win an argument. In my opinion, it’s best described as a multidimensional belief which includes one’s belief in the probability of God’s existence, one’s belief in what constitutes evidence for or against, and one’s level of interest in the question.

All of those are difficult to capture in a single adjective.