How Are Atheists or Secularists Harming You, Your Kids or Your Country?

[icehorse]

Richard Dawkins attacks 'irrelevant' religion in Rowan Williams debate - Telegraph
Speaking at the Cambridge Union debating society, Prof Dawkins argued that religion hindered scientific endeavour by ''peddling false explanations''.

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' | Science | The Guardian
Higgs has chosen to cap his remarkable 2012 with another bang by criticising the "fundamentalist" approach taken by Dawkins in dealing with religious believers.
"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."
I'm not the only one who finds his approach counter productive.

I think a little intellectual rabble-rousing in this arena is long overdue. Go Dakwins! Go Harris! Go Dennett! Go Maher! Go Hirsi Ali! No idea is above criticism.

 

[Jumi]

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

1) being a secularist I see nothing to be threatened by

4) no, I think it would serve you well

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think a little intellectual rabble-rousing in this arena is long overdue. Go Dakwins! Go Harris! Go Dennett! Go Maher! Go Hirsi Ali! No idea is above criticism.

It's not that it's rabble-rousing, it's that these people literally drive people away from science! I was there, I have seen how it works. You may cheer on their "**** you" attitude towards the religious, but myself, as someone who wishes to share a fascination, passion, and interests of science with others, they are doing a great disservice. You can't control how you are interpreted, but incessant mocking and ridiculing does not warm people up to ideas they are taught will destroy their faith. And people like Dawkins fuel those flames of fear and paranoia just as much as those printing tracks about how science is of the devil. And even if people aren't fundamentalists, the way he lumps religion together into a massive heap of fundamentalism comes off as rude to religious non-fundamentalists, which has Dawkins creating more barriers and obstacles to overcome than he is not helping to tear down.
As for Maher, all I've really seen are some of his stand-up, which to me seemed like he wrote around HuffPo headlines.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Dawkins creating more barriers and obstacles to overcome than he is not helping to tear down.As for Maher, all I've really seen are some of his stand-up, which to me seemed like he wrote around HuffPo headlines.

What these people have managed to do, together with a whole lot of other people in science, is to simply deny and or ignore freedom in the universe altogether.

In the future, if there is any, students learning about our present time will look back in disbelief and shock, how could basically the whole scientific community come to ignore freedom altogether?

And then they will learn about a culture of systematic intellectual violence coming from atheists, socialists, liberals, and the like who surpress any knowledge about freedom in the universe, like creationism and intelligent design theory.

 

[Paradox22]

In the future, if there is any, students learning about our present time will look back in disbelief and shock, how could basically the whole scientific community come to ignore freedom altogether?

In what way are scientists ignoring freedom?

And then they will learn about a culture of systematic intellectual violence coming from atheists, socialists, liberals, and the like who surpress any knowledge about freedom in the universe, like creationism and intelligent design theory.

Please explain how scientists, socialists and liberals are responsible for creating a culture of intellectual violence.

 

[Quintessence]

What the blazes does "intellectual violence" even mean?!

 

[Willamena]

What the blazes does "intellectual violence" even mean?!

Perhaps it refers to the rape of ideas by casting them as straw men.

 

[Paradox22]

And then they will learn about a culture of systematic intellectual violence coming from atheists, socialists, liberals, and the like who surpress any knowledge about freedom in the universe, like creationism and intelligent design theory.

My guess is that you see creationism as the only world view that is compatable with free will, and the atheists...frown on creationism. That the denial of creationism somehow represents a denial of free will? Of maybe it is meant politically. The denial of creationism represents an attack on your freedom to have your children believe in creationism. Can you help me out here?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My guess is that you see creationism as the only world view that is compatable with free will, and the atheists...frown on creationism. That the denial of creationism somehow represents a denial of free will? Of maybe it is meant politically. The denial of creationism represents an attack on your freedom to have your children believe in creationism. Can you help me out here?

,,,you can figure it out, be straightforward, reasonable.

Dennett socalled ultra-darwinist, very well known, has free will of people defined without neccessarily any alternative result. Wrote some essay entitled: "I could not have done otherwise, so what." Ridiculing the idea of an unevidenced soul or spirit choosing. The traditional concept of choosing which was used practically throughout the ages in diverse cultures throughout the world in families where the stakes were their own lives.

Dennett who does not acknowledge any decision in the entire history of the universe. Is Dennett part of a general pattern amongst evolutionists? How many decisions do other evolutionists acknowledge in the entire history of the universe? How many evolutionists accept free will of people is real? How do evolutionists deal with theories that freedom is real and relevant in the universe? Is creationism and intelligent design theory based on freedom in choosing what comes to be? What did you learn in school about how choosing works, or in higher education?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What the blazes does "intellectual violence" even mean?!

Coshing people with long words?

 

[Paradox22]

Dennett who does not acknowledge any decision in the entire history of the universe. Is Dennett part of a general pattern amongst evolutionists? How many decisions do other evolutionists acknowledge in the entire history of the universe? How many evolutionists accept free will of people is real? How do evolutionists deal with theories that freedom is real and relevant in the universe? Is creationism and intelligent design theory based on freedom in choosing what comes to be? What did you learn in school about how choosing works, or in higher education?

I don't think it is fair to use one person as an example to show that all atheists, socialists and liberals are critical of the notion of free will. I Don't know anything about Dennett but I suggest that he is an outlier. Being a liberal does not mean that you deny free will.

But thanks for explaining your position

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wondering if you guys have any thoughts on my last posts...specifically...

#166 - @Mohammad Nur Syamsu
#195 - @Nails

 

[Paradox22]

There's actually a lot to cover on this, but I'll just post a couple of brief comments to start with;

1) I'm constantly surprised by people arguing that subjective or relative goodness is meaningless. A suggestion that you are incapable of judging me as 'gooder' (sic) than Hitler seems self-servicing and disingenuous.

2) Humans are entirely capable of moral judgements, and we ALL make these on a daily basis, including those who believe in an objective morality. In my opinion, these are relative moral judgements, but that doesn't make them all equal, nor mean that there are not commonalities which speak to our humanity.

3) If you're suggesting that the only reason you act morally is the Bible, then I wouldn't see you as a moral person at all. You'd merely be abjuring your moral responsibility to an external source which you believe is right. So if lining you up next to people of various other faiths, and belief structures, each of you could tell me your way is the right way, and your morals are the objectively derived ones. It's meaningless.

4) Assuming there is an objective morality, the transmission of this objective morality is entirely SUBJECTIVE. An objective morality which is subjectively transmitted is, for all practical purposes, a subjective morality.

Regarding #195, I was waiting for you or someone else to explain that to Nails. I just couldn't be bothered to deal with that at the time. Thanks

 

[icehorse]

It's not that it's rabble-rousing, it's that these people literally drive people away from science! I was there, I have seen how it works. You may cheer on their "**** you" attitude towards the religious, but myself, as someone who wishes to share a fascination, passion, and interests of science with others, they are doing a great disservice. You can't control how you are interpreted, but incessant mocking and ridiculing does not warm people up to ideas they are taught will destroy their faith. And people like Dawkins fuel those flames of fear and paranoia just as much as those printing tracks about how science is of the devil. And even if people aren't fundamentalists, the way he lumps religion together into a massive heap of fundamentalism comes off as rude to religious non-fundamentalists, which has Dawkins creating more barriers and obstacles to overcome than he is not helping to tear down.
As for Maher, all I've really seen are some of his stand-up, which to me seemed like he wrote around HuffPo headlines.

This raises (for me) an interesting question. I think your point has some merit and that it's a question of pros and cons. I tend to think the new atheists approach does more good than harm, but I started a new thread here:

Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Apex]

This raises (for me) an interesting question. I think your point has some merit and that it's a question of pros and cons. I tend to think the new atheists approach does more good than harm, but I started a new thread here:

Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills? | ReligiousForums.com

As a religious person, if I were ever to leave my religion the absolute last group I would want to associate myself with are the "new atheist" types, for many of the same reasons Shadow Wolf has shared.

 

[icehorse]

As a religious person, if I were ever to leave my religion the absolute last group I would want to associate myself with are the "new atheist" types, for many of the same reasons Shadow Wolf has shared.

Fair enough. But have they made you think more closely about your beliefs and/or religion? I can tell you that in my case I never was religious, but listening to their arguments I reconsidered and decided that religion was causing more problems than I had previously considered.

 

[Apex]

Fair enough. But have they made you think more closely about your beliefs and/or religion?

My own curiosity and research is what made me think more critically about my own region. In fact, had I read new atheist material before I had started looking into my own religion on my own, I would have instantly dismissed anything they said due to the amount of vitriol and just plain old douchebaggery they put out.

I can tell you that in my case I never was religious, but listening to their arguments I reconsidered and decided that religion was causing more problems than I had previously considered.

I do not accept the conclusion that religion is the root of the problem.

 

[icehorse]

My own curiosity and research is what made me think more critically about my own region. In fact, had I read new atheist material before I had started looking into my own religion on my own, I would have instantly dismissed anything they said due to the amount of vitriol and just plain old douchebaggery they put out.

I do not accept the conclusion that religion is the root of the problem.

Well there are many problems and the only claim I'd make (and that "they" make), is that religion is often a significant factor in the world's problems.

 

[Bunyip]

Wow!

Just as a heads up guys, there is no 'New Atheist' group, it is not an organisation, it is not a mindset - there is no belief or position called 'New Atheism'.

'New Atheists' was the title of a magazine article about Dawkins and co.

I have to say, that I amazes me how many times on this forum a label invented by a magazine for an article is mistaken for some kind of sinister anti-religious fundamentalist sect.

 

[Storm]

These questions go out to theists, atheists, agnostics and pretty much any dairy product you can think of.

(1) In what ways are the actions of atheists or secularists threatening you, family, or the country?
For example, just off the top of my head I can imagine someone saying that teaching evolution is harmful to their children, or that it is important that the people running this country believe in God.

(2) Are atheists trying to convert people in the same way that religious people do?

(3) If atheists are trying to convert people, Is it better or worse than when people of other religions try to do the same?

(4) would a rise in secularism be bad for America? Why or why not?

1) What an odd question. Is there some reason I should think they are?

2) In exactly the same way, in fact: Some do, most don't. (Though conversion is a contestable word)

3) Exactly the same.

4) No. Secularism is, after all, religious neutrality on the part of the state. I happen to believe its decline is a clear and present danger to every citizen, even those stupid and near-sighted enough to long for theocracy.