Is anyone else tired of Evangelical Atheism?

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I haven't read Hitchens' book, but I have read plenty of Dawkins' work. In my understanding, his main complaint is with any worldview that teaches people to suppress doubt and rational thought, in order to cultivate or maintain a certain belief. Religions just happen to be the most prominent and effective users of this tactic. If someone claims that you must have faith to believe a certain proposition, it is (by definition) because there isn't a sufficient reason to believe it otherwise.

An appeal to faith is simply a dressing up of the Special Pleading Fallacy to make it look virtuous.

[_Hoops]

I simply don't agree that it's overall a net positive in our society to undermine rational and critical thinking by teaching people to believe in feelings and emotions as indicators of universal truth, that there's a diety out there who has a "special people" to whom they belong, that they have land that ought to be theres because God said so, and all the rest. It's just pure and utter shyte.

And, yet, there are some, perhaps many, very smart people who believe exactly that. Some even smarter than you. That is odd isn't it?

And there are some human beings who are the absolute peak of physical health who contract a virus and die young. Isn't that odd too? Religious ideas (and probably some other kinds of ideas, too, but certainly the religious ones) are viruses of the mind. They infect people and undermine that person's defense against bad thought, until a person, however smart they might otherwise be, simply cannot think straight about the religion.

Your equation of a material virus with religous thought, while colorful and illustrative to some degree, is not compatable. Smart and dumb people alike are free to reject any religous thought at any time, based on whatever impetus they wish. Your pious implication that you are somehow unencumbered by the myriad biases available is self-delusion - the very characteristic you castigate. Some choose differently, and their reasons are every bit as valid as yours, they might even claim more valid. As my Nuclear Physicist friend commented to me on why he believes, "It's reasonable."

[Guest]

Canucklehead

Richard Dawkins recently did a televion show entitled "The Root of All Evil?", and I should very much like to see the portion of the transcript wherein he states, "there is no evidence that religion is the root of all evil, and much evidence that it is not".

Hi Tal,

I have never seen the show in question, so I can't comment on it or whether Dawkins explicitly says what you're hoping for. Have you seen the show?

Based on Dawkins' book and the many question and answer sessions which he has undertaken (many of which are posted on youtube), I can't imagine that he would make the claim that religion is the root of all evil. That claim goes contrary to much of what he argues in his book. Dawkins doesn't make many blanket statements about relgion ... The explanation that marg referenced from wikipedia seems like a likely explanation as to how the show got its name.

In regard to the main point of your thread, I don't see how anyone could be so dreadfully tired of having atheism supposed preached to them as you claim to be. It's not like atheists are going around bashing on people's doors, trying to convert them now, is it? So a couple of books have been published... so what? Nobody is forcing you to read them. Neither is anyone being forced to sit and watch Dawkins' televised program. Hell, I read Dawkins' book, thoroughly enjoyed it and then went out and bought Hichens'. Therafter I heard more about the kind of book Hitchens' wrote, and decided that I'll probably disagree with much of it. Yet, even though I OWN the audio file of this book written by a so-called "horseman" (it's sitting on my hard drive right now), nothing has forced me to listen to it. Once I get around to it, I expect that I'll disagree with much of it. Yet, that certainly won't make me overly weary of the promotion of rational atheism.

Religion has been spread by the sword for millenia; a US president has publicly stated that atheists don't deserve to be citizens; every US politician has to kowtow to the religious fundamentalists in the south in order to not be written off entirely; yet, a couple of books promoting atheism get written and suddenly everyone is oh-so weary and enirely worn-out from atheism being "shoved down their throats"?

I don't get it.

[_Scottie]

I agree that religion is a virus of the mind, and the mindset that it's desirable and admirable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and in fact to believe things for which there is lots of contrary evidence, is not doing humankind any good.

When I read this, I thought about the line in Men in Black where Tommy Lee Jones says, "A person is smart. People are dumb."

An individual may benefit greatly from religion, but does humanity as a whole benefit from it? Personally, I don't think so.

My belief is that, while religion may help a few individuals, such as the alcoholic or drug addict as Tal mentioned, in the big picture, religion is a scourge.

From my observations, there is nothing that can divide a people into "us" and "them" than religion. Of course, perhaps without religion, we would just find something else to cling to that makes our "clan" unique.

[_barrelomonkeys]

From my observations, there is nothing that can divide a people into "us" and "them" than religion. Of course, perhaps without religion, we would just find something else to cling to that makes our "clan" unique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF0UwA6xLNI

Sports? Country?

You need to drive through Alabama with a UT sticker on yer car. :O

How bout a bit of politics to make a partisan? ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAPE6BlQYrw

[_Scottie]

From my observations, there is nothing that can divide a people into "us" and "them" than religion. Of course, perhaps without religion, we would just find something else to cling to that makes our "clan" unique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF0UwA6xLNI

Sports? Country?

You need to drive through Alabama with a UT sticker on yer car. :O

LOL....ok, maybe soccer....

I don't know about country. I really haven't travelled abroad. Maybe DCP can provide some insight on this, since he's been to many foreign lands? I know everyone hates the USA, but how do they feel towards other countries?

I guess it really boils down to passion. If you have a deep passion for something, anything that isn't that something will be hated. Religion often fosters a VERY deep passion.

[_barrelomonkeys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyHiYqDZ15I

There's the entire video since that last one was a tease and if yer anything like me you now have to dance.

I actually HATE this type of music. Because the subculture I joined hates this crap music. Mainstream corporate sell out shat! :P


*edited to add* You need to rent the Outsiders. People fuss and fight over silly things all the time and it has to do with the subculture they joined and nothing to do with religion. We want to belong and then demonize those that don't.

;P

[_Scottie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyHiYqDZ15I

There's the entire video since that last one was a tease and if yer anything like me you now have to dance.

I actually HATE this type of music. Because the subculture I joined hates this crap music. Mainstream corporate sell out shat! :P


*edited to add* You need to rent the Outsiders. People fuss and fight over silly things all the time and it has to do with the subculture they joined and nothing to do with religion. We want to belong and then demonize those that don't.

;P

I reserve the right to be completely wrong about this. Growing up in a 95% LDS community, religion is the single largest factor that I have experience with. Perhaps someone that grew up in Compton would claim that gangs are the single largest dividing force on the planet, since that is what they are familiar with. Or, as you said, those that grew up with a deep seeded passion for soccer would say that soccer is the biggest dividing force.

[_Gadianton]

I used to get bothered by atheists who I thought either oversimplified things, merely restated what everyone already knows as if it's a shocking revelation, or just came across as ego maniacs. Now, I think I'm more like that preacher who says there are many paths to God. There are, in fact, many paths out of God as well, and the most important thing is to get these people out of their churches, away from their scriptures, and out desecrating the Sabbath. There is actually, somewhat of a "evangelical" worry to whether this or that atheist is teaching with doctrinal purity or in a style that we personally find fitting for the glorious message that there is no God. Of course, disagreements are fine and if Hitchens or Dawkins have flaws in their work or style, then that's all up for discussion, but lets also remember they're doing their part in the good work.

[_marg]

I think there are a large number of atheists who don't give their lack of god belief much thought. Whether a God exists or not is unimportant to them. They do not belong to any organized group centered around their lack of belief. Religion other than what may be imposed upon them occasionally, has little conscious awareness in their lives. So I think the books are probably geared mainly to raise the consciousness of these individuals rather that to convert religious individuals away from their religious affiliation, though I'm sure it is also hoped that religious individuals might read the books and their perspective might change as well.

Most atheists are not against others having a "god belief". And most atheists do not claim there is no God. Most atheists couldn't care less if there is a God or not. They are against how religious organizations have used that God belief and fear of death to manipulate people to follow their dictates. Those dictates have got people believing absurd unrealistic completely irrational notions, have encouraged the giving of time and money which have made some organizations absurdly unnecessarily grossly rich, have mobilized their followers to be politically involved in some issues and they blindly follow, have encouraged blind obedience to the authority leaders. Religious organizations have encouraged a tribal mentality, which is fine if one is part of the tribe but not so great for those outside the tribe who can be negatively affected by that tribe.

Time and again what I see on the Net coming from religious individuals is a very anti- science, anti reasoning, anti evidence mentality which in my opinion is not a good way of thinking likely to enable one to reach good results/decisions. Blind obedience to authority and faith in things which run counter to what we experience in this world I don't see as all that benefical and I can see harm in it. What we should want in society are critical thinkers, people who question authority appropriately, people who use faith intelligently.

My conciousness on religion was raised via the internet. I haven't been highly motivated to read Dawkins and the other 3 mentioned. I have their books but invariably I find something else which interests me more, currently K.C. Cole who writes about mainly about physics and math in simple terms easily understood. They, those 4 mentioned probably have taken an extreme position purposefully, to hit home some points. If they didn't what they'd have to say would probably be largely ignored.