HOT TOPIC REPOSTED BY POPULAR DEMAND
Not sure, but I don’t think the Brit author of this piece likes these guys.
The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
It’s an extraordinary publishing phenomenon – atheism sells. Any philosopher, professional polemicist or scientist with worries about their pension plan must now be feverishly working on a book proposal. Richard Dawkins has been in the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic since The God Delusion came out last autumn following Daniel Dennett’s success with Breaking the Spell. Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscience graduate, has now clocked up two bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. Last week, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything was published in the US. The science writer, Matt Ridley, recently commented that on one day at Princeton he met no fewer than three intellectual luminaries hard at work on their God books.
[…]Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief.
And it’s a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated (although they differ as to the chances of achieving that). The newcomer on the block, Hitchens, sums up monotheism as “a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few non-events”.
The durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking […] Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed – the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date?
John C. Dvorak is God
Let’s see if I can sum up this authors tactics in a few simple steps
Step 1) If you can’t attack their position, attack their motives:
“atheism sells” – the only reason these people are taking this obviously ridiculous position is to sell books.
Step 2) lock onto one of the most divisive statements in said books in order to cast the entire lot as crazy and ranting.
“their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief – they want it eradicated” – these people are just religion haters who hate it for hatings sake.
Step 3) Make up some scientific sounding “facts” and say that “Scientists” came up with it
“Scientists have argued…” – this has the added bonus of not having to actually cite any actual science.
#2, your post is not clear, are you saying that people people like ann coulter and rush limbaugh make outrageous claims just to sell books?
that’s outlandish!
@3
not sure I follow, what wasn’t clear?
Me thinks they doth protest too much.
If there is no God then why should they care if anyone believes or not.
@5
I can’t remember the exact wording, but the simple version is “religion is one of the few things which can cause a good person to do horrible things”
#5: We should care if people are performing atrocities in His name.
@5
Because of all the nutty things people do in the name of, or with the perceived permission of, god.
#4 i couldn’t tell from you post what point you were making, maybe i am misreading it.
#5 — atheists want you to quit your religion and join theirs
p.s. if you have a system of beliefs, have some sense of organization around those beliefs, and evangelize those beliefs, you have a duck.
# 2: I certainly do not need anyone intrepreting for me, especially when they come off as totally ignorant.
#1, John isn’t God. He just likes to pretend he is.
# 5 Paul, Amen.
“why should they care if anyone believes or not”
Too many people (religious are not immune) like to point fingers and say they are different, one way or another. Too many people (religious are not immune) like to categorized people “unclean” rather then be involved with them.
Economic resource are partitioned based on how we categorize (again the religious are not immune).
I think this whole thing atheism vs. theism debate is a distracting false dichotomy in which idiots play. I think the founding fathers knew this.
You have people in both camps responsible for mass murder or purges.
Our personal business (not the groups business) is either you care for “the stranger” or you don’t. You have people from both camps caring and not caring.
IMHO!
@2
I was just trying to point out the tactics the author is using in order to avoid actually having to debate the real issues brought up by Dawkins and other rational minds.
@11
well done attacking me as ignorant, anything specific, or just ignorant in general
usually when one disagrees with something, they have specific counterpoints, not just name calling.
Katrina changed everything because plane old Americans where involved
and the press was doing it’s job.
The incredible thing is that his ratings started dropping seriously 2-3 months after the mid-term election. That’s what pisses me off.
The lesson of the 20th century was that the only thing worse than religious fanatics is atheist fanatics.
Sorry to take up space but I feel embarrasses to have to many spelling mistakes in a comment who’s thrust is education and intelligence. Excuse me, please, for my forgetting to edit.
16# Even one example would be appreciated. You do know you look like a troll or sock-puppet, otherwise. Right?
# 14.
#11 Was not an attack, but a statement of fact.
If you choose to take it as an attack then so be it. I could care less, but that would take too much effort.
#16: define “atheist fanatic”? I still have to see one.
Oh, are you talking about people who actually won’t settle for “god made it this way” as an answer and keep on asking? Yeah, those are fanatics for sure. Worst when they’re actually poking at the core of the $RELIGION “belief system”.
Theist: “The universe is 5000 years old, I can’t imagine it being infinitely old or even a few billion years”
Atheist: “so how did the universe come to be?”
Theist: “god created it”
Atheist: “so how did god come to be?”
Theist: “god was always there”
Atheist: “duh!”
What an atheist fanatic!
pj
Sign me up!!
@20
so it’s a fact that I’m ignorant. Great, thanks for clearing that up, you have raised the bar for civilised discourse.
again I would ask that you actually present what you found to be so “ignorant” about what I said, and perhaps present a counterpoint to any of the points I made about the authors use of backhanded tactics in order to avoid having to intelligently respond to the atheists points.
Fanatics are always bad, regardless of their cause.
I would consider the authors of these books to be fanatical in their denial of religion.
If there are any theists reading this blog, please do not judge all atheists based on the worst examples shown by these authors.
“It’s an extraordinary publishing phenomenon – atheism sells.”
Whats so extraordinary about that?
The mere fact that atheism sells is a hopeful sign that at last, in the places where atheism sells, humanity is finally waking up.
And it has obviously got the theists extremely worried….every snide, underhanded, bogus argument they can adapt and invent is now being deployed to try discredit the atheist “enlightenment” is now being deployed.
This is going to be a long running campaign.
What amuses me is when the theists try to discredit atheism (small “a”) by describing it as the new religion. This just demonstrates how desperate they are…..they cannot even think outside their own tiny envelope
So it looks like the consensus is that only dumb people would be religious. Is that close?
My guess is they would also be too dumb to learn to not be religious. So the only option would be to remove them for the sake of the gene pool.
Next!
What do we do with disabled people (blind, deaf, homo$exual)?
Somebody call Germany so we can figure out what to do here.
#10 – #5 — atheists want you to quit your religion and join theirs
p.s. if you have a system of beliefs, have some sense of organization around those beliefs, and evangelize those beliefs, you have a duck.
Comment by grog — 5/7/2007 @ 12:12 pm
I believe computers help make our world better and that people should learn to use them to make their lives better. I meet every third Thursday of the month with like-minded computer enthusiasts. We invite “industry experts” to be speaking guests at our meetings. We put up posters around town trying to get others to come tor our meetings and join in our computery goodness.
Do I have a duck?
Atheist means literally “without a god” or “without religion”
I googled (I love that googled is a verb now, but when used as a verb, is it capitalized?) the definition of religion (I actually already knew it, but you know, for fun) and almost every definition relates to a belief in some supernatural gods or similar spookyness. Having a belief in a god (or some such) is actually the exact opposite of NOT having a belief in a god (or some such).
There was one definition that was different, and it’s my favorite one:
Religion: Theory about aliens created all of our major religions. They also claim that they through hybridization created Homo Sapiens, Jesus and that the whole crucifixion is filmed on tape.
There it is, grammar mistakes and all. I’d post the link but it’s a site that sells alien themed tee shirts and apparel and I’m not into spamming John’s site.
Anywoo, I forget who said it, and I know I heard it said here on this blog… “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”
#26: “So it looks like the consensus is that only dumb people would be religious. Is that close?”
You are very close to what I believe. You can discredit me but it shows your weakness in rhetoric to say that. Strawmen are so cliche nowadays. Wake up.
“My guess is they would also be too dumb to learn to not be religious. So the only option would be to remove them for the sake of the gene pool.”
I used to be religious. I tried very hard to find out what brings comfort to the distressed. I moved across the whole gamut of religions and spiritualisms. The answer for me was staring me in the face all the time and it was the hunch I had from the beginning. I believed in some dumb things. Gaius Julius Caesar: “Men willingly believe what they wish to be true.” It’s a disconnect between the imagination and agency, my friend.
Again with those straw men. You really have no concept how transparent your statements are.
Nevermind anyway, you just disqualified yourself from any further discussions by way of Godwin’s law.
No, dearie, things aren’t black and white like that!
#26
Wow! Thats a amazing leap you are making there.
You invent the accusation that those siding with the atheist viewpoint are calling those with the theist viewpoint “dumb”
Then how on earth do you get to the conclusion that they are then calling for genocide?
You demonstrate my point perfectly. You invent an insidious and totally bogus lie in order to discredit those who do no believe in a “supreme being”
If you don’t believe in a God or in an afterlife, then, other than the biological imperitive to survive, why stick around?
You could rob an armored car, get some loot to make your life more comfortable and if you never got caught you would never be judged for your crime. You would get away scott free, but in the end it really wouldn’t matter since you will end up dead just like the honest people.
You could help save the lives of starving children in a third-world country and all you would accomplish is postponing their eventual final end. The end you will also meet with no final reward for your efforts.
So, why bother doing anything good, or bad for that matter? Just count off the days until your meaningless life is over.
One more post and I’ll back off.
#24 “Fanatics are always bad, regardless of their cause.
I would consider the authors of these books to be fanatical in their denial of religion.
If there are any theists reading this blog, please do not judge all atheists based on the worst examples shown by these authors. ”
Have you ready these books? I have. They are evangelizing rationality and not atheism. I can, I suppose, admit to them being manipulative and dishonest. I haven’t seen the evidence, though. When I do I will quickly change my mind on them and be all the wiser.
Neitzche says: “Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.”
This doesn’t pan out WRT Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Each writes rather prosaically and their texts are replete with explanations of the most pedantic character, for popular science schlock.
Dawkins and Dennett are both uber smart men. Their research into evolutionary psychology and consciousness studies, respectiveley, has advanced human understanding. Hitchens, usually a friend of the reactionaries, is a different story. He is, however, a true renaissance man. Very few are as well read and cultured as he, nowadays.
Fanatics rarely change the subject and are never willing to admit defeat. The works of these men will have to stand the test of time, like any work of the mind. Your words can be dismissed as fanatical immediately.
dismissed
Like Bryan….one more post and I will also back-off.
@30
Is that it….is that really it?
“You could help save the lives of starving children in a third-world country and all you would accomplish is postponing their eventual final end. The end you will also meet with no final reward for your efforts.”
I have to back-off after that……I am seething.
Are you telling me that the only reason to help starving children in the third world is because you EXPECT to receive a reward???
To get brownie points with your creator? not because you have a shred of humanity and actually want to help ease suffering
You and people like you are beyond contempt
You show the true colours of the so called religious