To the Anti-Religious

[Storm]

No, I do NOT realize that nor do i accept it.

Such people are "religious" in much the way a nag is a Derby winner. They are both horses but only the gullible or uninformed would mistake one for the other.

In the immortal words of Ann Coulter, "I believe in a REAL religion. You know, one with rules and things."

Probably the only both accurate and intelligible thing she has ever said.

"Modern or liberal xantianity" and other new age collections of feel good ideas are hardly worthy of mention in the same sentence with Judaism or Islam or "historical Christianity."

My long dead dear pastor use to say very sincerely, "If you don't feel your religion directing your actions every day, telling you what to do and what not to do, you either aren't following it or you don't have one the began with."

So, you too simply deny that they are what they are, rather than reconsider your own stance.

 

[dogsgod]

Unless they're anti-religious.

if you need to refer to those that are critical of religion as being anti-religious then that's your prerogative.

Not all of the religious do this, but you do. So, what's the difference?

Do what?

Then whence your definition of the religious?

Those that share commonly held unsupported beliefs.

 

[Storm]

Before I respond in detail, dogsgod, can you clear something up for me? You've never struck me as particularly anti-religious, nor are you one of the posters I referred to in the OP. Do you actually hold such views, or are you simply playing devil's advocate?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"So, you too simply deny that they are what they are, rather than reconsider your own stance."


It is what it is. Like it or lump it but you can't change it.

Now, if you will please excuse me more pressing matters require my attention. I don't think I got to the obituaries in today's paper.

 

[monta]

There is only one thing more annoying than a proseltyzing atheist, that is getting sucked into an argument with one that escalates into a stupid 'I know you are but what am I' debate (this is in reference to another thread )

Next thing you know I am defending myself from non existence attacks and getting my nose bent out of shape for no reason.

All this atheists are statistically smarter than theists malarky is so irritating to me but someone will make this stupid statement or one of 20 or so partially regurgitated Dawkins catchphrases and then someone else responds and soon the fur and feathers start flying.

For the record I don't think atheists are smarter than anyone else, I don't care what you believe and firmly believe that everyone should have the freedom to exercise their own faiths without being hassled by anyone, providing they aren't trying to attack someone elses freedom.

 

[logician]

I just wish I would hear as many complaints about the 24/7 religious proselytization happening on our airways, and, yes, in our politics.

 

[ChristineES]

What I notice is that some atheists don't like it if a Christian is to say that all people sin, or that atheists are amoral because they don't have God. Do you think it is fair to say the same kinds of things about Christians and all other faiths that you don't like said about yourself? Or do you think that if someone thinks differently than you do, they deserve different value judgments? (NOTE: I am not saying that ALL atheists say these things, only a small amount of them do).

 

[Kathryn]

Monta, that was an excellent post.

I hate to say this, but it's sort of refreshing to hear an atheist honestly say that they're sometimes embarrassed by the attitudes of other atheists.

As a Christian, I can relate!

Better to just take charge of managing our own lives and interactions with others, than to sit around trying to tar and feather other groups.

I think a much wiser person than I once said that we should get the log out of our own eye before trying to remove the splinter out of someone else's eye.

 

[Nepenthe]

Monta, that was an excellent post.

I hate to say this, but it's sort of refreshing to hear an atheist honestly say that they're sometimes embarrassed by the attitudes of other atheists.

But why wouldn't atheists take this stance when there's really so little in common with them other than lack of a belief in God(s)? Religious folks, even those faiths that are very different than each other, are likely to have a bit more in common than atheists with other atheists. Atheism says very little actually. I have plenty in common with a couple of non-theists on RF, and even more in common with some deists/mystics/panentheists/theists/kemetic reconstructionists and such than anything posted by the recent "influx of anti-religious atheists".

The other thing that I'm curious about, and Monta mentions it in her post, is that Dawkins somehow represents this "new atheism" and embodies all the intolerance and bigotry therein. And while The God Delusion does betray Dawkins skills as a pop science writer and fails to offer anything meaningful to atheism and theism, it's hardly offensive. Hell, even Thomas Paine and Voltaire were more aggressive and catty in criticizing faiths.

I do find the internet Dawkinites come across as 14 year olds who use catch phrases to annoy and troll forums- though the same can be said for the annoying film buffs who post on IDBM, or hipster contrarians who troll music forums with a condescending attitude. Point being the Dawkinites are not necessarily accurate reflections of what Dawkins actually wrote.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Nepenthe that Voltaire and Thomas Paine were more critical of religion than Dawkins.

 

[Dunemeister]

The other thing that I'm curious about, and Monta mentions it in her post, is that Dawkins somehow represents this "new atheism" and embodies all the intolerance and bigotry therein. And while The God Delusion does betray Dawkins skills as a pop science writer and fails to offer anything meaningful to atheism and theism, it's hardly offensive. Hell, even Thomas Paine and Voltaire were more aggressive and catty in criticizing faiths.

Whether Paine and Voltaire were more aggressive than Dawkins is debatable. But even if they were, that wouldn't make the criticism of Dawkins any less accurate. I find most of what Dawkins writes about religion offensive, and I imagine I would whether or not I wore a religious mantle. If Dawkins would stick to biology, an area he has some street cred in, he'd do everyone -- atheist and theist alike -- a huge favor.

I do find the internet Dawkinites come across as 14 year olds who use catch phrases to annoy and troll forums... <snip> Point being the Dawkinites are not necessarily accurate reflections of what Dawkins actually wrote.

Actually, what Dawkins actually writes about religion qualifies as adolescent rant, so I'd have to say that the Dawkinites fairly accurately reflect their master.

 

[Sunstone]

Why not just get over Dawkins? I believe the main reason people criticize the man is because they cannot criticize his arguments. It would be respectable to criticize his arguments.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Dawkins says. But it astonishes me that in numerous threads on this board, his arguments have almost never been challenged -- only his attitude or disposition. I probably see more weaknesses in Dawkins' arguments than some of the champions of religion who have attacked him rather than his arguments.

 

[Nepenthe]

Why not just get over Dawkins? I believe the main reason people criticize the man is because they cannot criticize his arguments. It would be respectable to criticize his arguments.

Exactly.

Dawkins strength is explaining biology to the layperson, not in analyzing religions and I won't champion him as some atheist "leader" (I'm not sure what that would even mean!) or even of adding much that is constructive or insightful to religious debate. But my point in mentioning Voltaire and Paine in context with Dawkins is that there's a historical precedent of reasoned analysis of religions with the expected backlash from the faithful- not a backlash in arguing against the actual claims but a kneejerk reaction to the hubris of questioning firmly entrenched religious ideas.

Here's the key to my frubal drawer Sunstone; it'd just be easier that way.

 

[Smoke]

Seems we've had an influx of anti-religious atheists lately, making statements like "religion poisons everything," and "a rational religious person is... an oxymoron."

You guys do realize that a goodly number of the religious you love to bash are atheists, right? Agnostics, too. There are strictly atheistic sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheists (along with everyone else) are embraced by UU, and constitute a good chunk of our faith. There are even atheistic neopagans and occultists.

So, how do you deal with these people? Are they subject to your bashing, or do you just ignore their existence?

I can't answer for the people you're addressing, since I'm one of those religious atheists.

However, I too think religion can be dangerous. There are many perfectly good reasons to be critical of religion in general, not just the religions I particularly dislike, but also the religions I like -- Buddhism, Quakerism, Hinduism, and others. All the major religions have been used to oppress people. Most expressions of most of the major religions demand the suspension of rational thought in one area or another. Most of the major religions have been used thwart justice, to deaden compassion, and to excuse violence. Religious people are obligated to guard against these things. Most of the time, we don't.

Is it really so hard to understand why people are anti-religious? It's the easiest thing in the world for me, to see how people can despise all religion. The uncomfortable truth is that they have a point.

It's unfortunate that so many people express that point in juvenile and unproductive ways, but if we aspire to be fair or compassionate or truthful, I think it behooves us to consider the point rather than simply dismissing these people, and especially the young people.

I find it difficult to do. There are many rash and ignorant anti-religious people, and they do try one's patience. Fortunately, however, there are not nearly so many of them as there are rash and ignorant religious people, and person for person and pound for pound they do far less harm to others than the rash and ignorant religious people do. They're trying, however clumsily, to fight for reason and liberation. One hopes that in time they will learn to do so in a reasonable and liberating way.

In the meantime, I find their gibes and insults far less troubling than the actual harm done by religious fanatics.

 

[Sola'lor]

So if an atheist claims what I believe to be false, doesn't that also mean they are claiming that they are a better judge of my personal experiences than I am?

 

[Kathryn]

Dawkins writings are to atheism what the Left Behind series is to Christianity.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, what Dawkins actually writes about religion qualifies as adolescent rant,

Actually, it doesn't. The blind hatred of Richard Dawkins not only by fundamentalists but by people who consider themselves moderates or liberals is stunning in the way it reveals how even the best of religious people can readily descend into an irrational, tribal mentality. The eagerness of believers of all stripes to demonize Dawkins has caused me to reconsider some of the points on which I initially disagreed with him.

 

[Smoke]

So if an atheist claims what I believe to be false, doesn't that also mean they are claiming that they are a better judge of my personal experiences than I am?

They may be judging more than just your personal experiences. However, if it does mean that they're claiming to be better judges of your personal experiences than you are, wouldn't that be true across the board? Wouldn't that also be true of you, if you say that any belief other than your own is false?

 

[Smoke]

Dawkins writings are to atheism what the Left Behind series is to Christianity.

I cannot imagine how any person who is both intelligent and educated could possibly think so.

 

[michaelnicko]

Atheists have that right in this satanic world that they perpetuate ,but eventually they will lose the argument in a horrific way.