Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[Scuba Pete]

I don't know Lilithu, I just can't get past the hate and bitterness to be able to appreciate any of his finer points. The incessant assault on my faith makes me defensive rather than receptive to any insights he might proffer.

 

[lilithu]

I don't know Lilithu, I just can't get past the hate and bitterness to be able to appreciate any of his finer points. The incessant assault on my faith makes me defensive rather than receptive to any insights he might proffer.

Well I first knew (of) Dawkins via his books on evolution, not his views on religion. And they really are brilliant. The first time that I heard him speak about religion, I was surprised by his condescending attitude towards people of faith. (I never expect people whom I like to dislike me, it's always a surprise.) But even so, he was merely dismissive of religionists back then, and it wasn't like I hadn't encountered that from other scientists as well.

But then Sept 11th happened, and Dawkins decided that religion was to blame. That he couldn't just just tolerate religion as superstition anymore, he had to get work to actively get rid of it. All religion, not just fundamentalism. Like Harris, he decided that moderate religionists were also dangerous because in the wake of 9/11, liberal and moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims got together and prayed for tolerance, love and understanding between the faiths. (How dare they!!) And in Dawkins' mind that just proved that all religion is bad. (Don't ask me to explain his logic because I can't.) He describes it as sort of an epiphany moment for him, tho of course he didn't use such language.

When faced with the horror 9/11, no one can just continue as before. Everyone is changed. Some people decide to recommit themselves to love, and others decide to turn to hate. It was a polarizing event and we are living with its continued consequences.

 

[lilithu]

Aw c'mon guys... logdog posted an article from a major, respected newspaper, written by a well known figure. It's fair game for discussion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Aw c'mon guys... logdog posted an article from a major, respected newspaper, written by a well known figure. It's fair game for discussion.

One can choose to hide behind any number of devices to advance their cause and avoid criticism at the same time. He would make Harris proud.

 

[LogDog]

:beach:

 

[MaddLlama]

Aw c'mon guys... logdog posted an article from a major, respected newspaper, written by a well known figure. It's fair game for discussion.

I tried, but there doesn't seem to be much to discuss.

Unless someone wants to disagree with my interpretation of the snippet of the article from one of my last posts. Even just for fun. Beyond that, I don't think we've got much of a topic here outside of talking about the extremism that's rearing its ugly head in atheism.
But, I think we already had a topic on whether or not atheists can be extremists. Bugger.

 

[lilithu]

I tried, but there doesn't seem to be much to discuss.

Unless someone wants to disagree with my interpretation of the snippet of the article from one of my last posts. Even just for fun.

Sorry nope, I agreed with you, frubals and all.

I just meant that logdog had every right to post the article in the first place. Otherwise we're saying that people who hold this view aren't even allowed to talk.

Tho starting off an article by calling all theists "dupes" and "delusional" really doesn't leave much room for discussion.

But, I think we already had a topic on whether or not atheists can be extremists. Bugger.

That was linwood's thread and he agreed upfront that atheists can be extremists. He just said that atheists can't be fundamentalists. In the strictest sense he's right. But what I liked about the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" was that it connotes a religious fervor about one's own rightness and intolerance for opposing views. Extremist doesn't necessarily imply that.

 

[MaddLlama]

Sorry nope, I agreed with you, frubals and all.

I just meant that logdog had every right to post the article in the first place. Otherwise we're saying that people who hold this view aren't even allowed to talk.

Tho starting off an article by calling all theists "dupes" and "delusional" really doesn't leave much room for discussion.

Well, maybe if he agrees with the article he wants to argue against my point. =) Would be nice to have some input from the person who started the thread, right?

That was linwood's thread and he agreed upfront that atheists can be extremists. He just said that atheists can't be fundamentalists. In the strictest sense he's right. But what I liked about the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" was that it connotes a religious fervor about one's own rightness and intolerance for opposing views. Extremist doesn't necessarily imply that.

Oh, yes, now I remember. Wow, that was a long time ago. I miss lin.
Not to start up that whole debate again, but I don't know if I agree that only people who are religious can be fundamentalists. Really to say that is going by the commonly used context, but that doesn't mean that's the only way the word can be used. Personally I am of the mind that anyone who believes their way is right, and as such they need to work to change everyone elses mind, is a fundamentalist. Though, I guess that's kind of a loose way of using the word.

 

[lilithu]

Well, maybe if he agrees with the article he wants to argue against my point. =) Would be nice to have some input from the person who started the thread, right?

Heere doggy, doggy! C'mere boy!

Oh, yes, now I remember. Wow, that was a long time ago. I miss lin.

Yeah, I miss him too.

Not to start up that whole debate again, but I don't know if I agree that only people who are religious can be fundamentalists.

Nah, he wasn't saying only people who are religious can be fundamentalists. He was saying that only people who adhere to certain beliefs can be fundamentalists. For example, according to him, you can be a fundamentalist libertarian. But since atheism isn't a belief but rather the lack of a belief, one can't be a fundie atheist.

I didn't really buy that argument, since while atheism technically means lack of belief in God, it often functionally means the belief that there is no God. However, by the end of the conversation I had to admit that the way that we use the word "fundamentalist" now, it only means someone whom we find to be too extreme for our tastes. It's a circular definition, and holds no real meaning other than as a pejorative.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I just meant that logdog had every right to post the article in the first place. Otherwise we're saying that people who hold this view aren't even allowed to talk.

That's the point: he's NOT talking. He has dropped an incendiary bomb and has pretty much sat back while we have discussed it for him. Sort of like someone lighting a house on fire just to watch the fire department work. This is the very definition of a "troll": someone who wants to get people all rilled up so they can watch for fun. I am underwhelmed by this type of ploy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I didn't really buy that argument, since while atheism technically means lack of belief in God, it often functionally means the belief that there is no God. However, by the end of the conversation I had to admit that the way that we use the word "fundamentalist" now, it only means someone whom we find to be too extreme for our tastes. It's a circular definition, and holds no real meaning other than as a pejorative.

This is my whole problem with our current nomenclature. By definition, those who operate on the EXTREME edge cannot really be fundamentalists. They have added to the true fundamentals of the religion or have completely departed from them.

The main tenet of Christianity, according to it's author is LOVE. How could we ever call those who's main tenets are hate and intolerance fundamentalists? I feel that I am a fundamentalist in that regard since my main tenet is also love, but I don't consider myself an extremist. What's worse, is that by calling these extremists fundamentalists, we are enabling their egregious behaviors. We have given them a badge of honor that does nothing to describe their viciousness or their intolerance.

Just call the intolerant hate mongers what they are, whether they are theist or atheist: extremists. Calling them fundamentalists just clouds the real issue.

 

[Kcnorwood]

The only think I can agree on in the article is I don't think you have to believe in God/s to help your fellow man. I think being human & having compassion should be more then enough.

 

[LogDog]

Harris and his atheist colleagues have planted a seed. Their arguments have renewed a debate and are reaching a broader audience than ever before. The foundation and rationality of religion is being challenged and there's no doubt these challenges have ruffled a few feathers. The big question is, how will things play out in the future. Will their arguments be swept under the carpet and ignored or will the seed grow?

 

[MaddLlama]

Harris and his atheist colleagues have planted a seed. Their arguments have renewed a debate and are reaching a broader audience than ever before. The foundation and rationality of religion is being challenged and there's no doubt these challenges have ruffled a few feathers. The big question is, how will things play out in the future. Will their arguments be swept under the carpet and ignored or will the seed grow?

Well, how many religious believers have been converted to atheism as a result of the writings and opinions of Harris and Dawkins?

 

[lilithu]

Well, how many religious believers have been converted to atheism as a result of the writings and opinions of Harris and Dawkins?

I don't think they're converting theists to atheism. But what they may be succeeding in doing is converting moderate atheists to extremism.

My response to logdog's vague post is: "a seed of what?"

Atheism has already existed for ages. The only thing "new" is the reactionary stridency in the face of a conflicting world views. (And that's not really "new" it's just cyclical.) In that respect, I don't think they've started something new, as in planting a seed, but rather are reacting to the times, and therefore are more a product of change rather than an impetus to change.

 

[LogDog]

Well, how many religious believers have been converted to atheism as a result of the writings and opinions of Harris and Dawkins?

No idea, but I'd suggest that their goal is not so nearsighted. Theirs is a long term proposition. Nothing is going to change overnight in regard to the current religiocity of our culture. The question is whether future generations will more widely embrace these general points of view and shun the god hypothesis in a more vocal manner.

 

[LogDog]

I don't think they're converting theists to atheism. But what they may be succeeding in doing is converting moderate atheists to extremism.

I'd suggest their arguments have in some cases strengthened the faith of followers. I'd also suggest there are those who once considered themselves "belivers," who after investigating these arguments more thoroughly, abandoned their faith.

Have the viewpoints of these outspoken individuals led "moderate atheists" to become more "extreme atheists?" Maybe. But I feel it's more likely that the "moderate atheist" who was once reluctant to voice his opinion is becoming more comfortable in doing so. Congressman Stark is a good example.

My response to logdog's vague post is: "a seed of what?"

Atheism has already existed for ages. The only thing "new" is the reactionary stridency in the face of a conflicting world views. (And that's not really "new" it's just cyclical.) In that respect, I don't think they've started something new, as in planting a seed, but rather are reacting to the times, and therefore are more a product of change rather than an impetus to change.

I believe you are correct. There really isn't anything new about what these individuals are suggesting. It's just that what is being said is getting more attention in a post 9-11 world and that more people than ever are being exposed to these viewpoints due to the ever increasing accessibility of information.

Maybe I should have said that these individuals have watered a seed that was planted a long time ago.

 

[UnTheist]

I don't think they're converting theists to atheism. But what they may be succeeding in doing is converting moderate atheists to extremism.

I believe both Harris' and Dawkins' goal are to convert the on-the-fence religious people who don't take religion too seriously to atheism.
They both agree that the extremists and fundamentalists will not think twice about their message.

 

[athanasius]

I believe both Harris' and Dawkins' goal are to convert the on-the-fence religious people who don't take religion too seriously to atheism.
They both agree that the extremists and fundamentalists will not think twice about their message.

I am no fundamentalist by far, but when I read Dawkins reasons for not believing in God I found alot of holes in them:sorry1: . I wrote a 8 page paper on them from a philospical point of view for my philosophy class! But thats just my 2 cents.

 

[UnTheist]

I am no fundamentalist by far, but when I read Dawkins reasons for not believing in God I found alot of holes in them:sorry1: . I wrote a 8 page paper on them from a philospical point of view for my philosophy class! But thats just my 2 cents.

I wish I was in philosophy class.

Can you tell me a few of the holes you found? I'm just curious.