How I Learned Not to Fear the Anti-God Squad

Interesting article from the wall street journal

Begins by addressing the bus advertising campaign and gives a brief run down of the american atheist scene which has modeled the UK one.

What I thought was interesting however is

and .....

So rather than "public stage" atheism being the coup de grace of theism, it can be termed as a means for allowing a more philosophically/ethically sound voice of religion to take the stage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure.
Sometimes, Christians even say that 'atheists are there to challenge the theists, so that the theists will strive to be better theists'.

But I do not think that Christianity, with all its various schools, has the means for a more philosophically and ethically sound voice of religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saying atheists are anti gods has it backward. Gods are anti human. Theists are anti human. Religion does the attacking then upon an understandable reaction, theists cry that they've been attacked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The bold statement is where I stopped reading, as it lost what little credibility it had after that.

 

Sounds good. Let's see it.

In the US, the current occupant of "the stage" is the fundie wing of the Republican Party.

So that's what needs to be replaced.

How about the Jim Wallis or Wendell Berry crowds?

 

Thats a pretty sound argument. I learned much more about Islam after meeting the atheists here.

 

One need only read the author's excerpt above and see a failed grasp on the concept. Indeed, it appears that the author of this article is among many of his peers that are so personally offended that there exist those that are not only willing to question his superstitions but to do so publicly that he embodies that which he accuses rationalists of: taking it seriously enough to attack it.

Under the pretense of "welcoming it," the author accuses rationalists of being "the devil's disciples" -appealing to the spell of ignorance that afflicts many Christians, which is a fear of that Christian god known as Satan or the devil.

He then pretends that his primary god (Yahweh) exists (at least in the public square) "only in quarrels over holidays displays, political campaigns, or self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble."

If his gods were to remain in those limited domains, it would very likely be the case that no one would bother refuting the silliness and lunacy of his superstitions. Instead, his gods are thrust upon the rest of society, regardless of their pre-existing religions or lack there of. His gods are being sneaked into science classrooms where undereducated believers want their mythology to be presented instead of science; his gods are being shoved into the bedrooms of loving couples who want to have sex under their own terms; his gods are being pushed into civil matters like marriage; his gods are being jammed into courtrooms where displays of the mythology of a particular superstition make it clear that to be found innocent or believable, you had better align yourself with the court's superstition; his gods are being funded by our own tax dollars to continue faith-based services that expect adherence to superstition to receive critical human services; and so on and so on.

Religious nuts, the superstitious, and other deluded sorts have had the stage long enough.

Its time to laugh them off of it, except their act is no laughing matter.

I *am* glad, however, that you acknowledge that religious superstition is an "act" on a "stage."

 

Sounds very similar to the actions of the League of the Militant Godless in Soviet Russia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persec...t_Union#Interbellum_persecution_of_the_Church


...or its equivalent in Mao's China.

Do atheists take any stand on these persecutions of theists?

 

Of course they do. Theists should not be persecuted or oppressed. That's precisely the point!

What you're seeing in my words is, perhaps, what you expect: an atheist criticizing religion. What you're not seeing, however, is an atheist saying no religion should dominate others in a public square. That's what's happening in the United States.

I, along with most atheists who are vocal and active, have no real problem with what people believe. In fact, I'm a proponent of the freedom of religion every bit as much as I'm a proponent of freedom from religion.

What we have in the United States at this point in time is the very un-patriotic and anti-American sentiment that a religious majority gets the right to have final say on everything in society. This sentiment comes from that religious majority who feels that, because they are a majority, they're automatically right.

And that is where the recent proliferation of atheist books and media originates from.

 

I love how it's religion that's attack, but never the nonbeliever. If someone does not believe in a religious town, they are attacked heavily. At least most nonbelievers have enough common sense not to ban games and books that they think might be of the devil. like D&D and Potter.

Ugh!

 

And by attacking theists, they prove that they are better at it?

Depends on where you live

 

These people seemed overly focused on Christianity. There are other religions too.

Alas...their efforts are in vain...like a fish trying to drink the entire ocean it lives in...silly people...

If it comes to a point that we'd need to take them seriously...they'd get snuffed out in a couple of days...for attacking liberty itself...if their goal is to abolish the freedom to choose one's own religion instead of abolishing the desire to make a choice!!!

 

There is someone who posts about Christianity who uses a disclaimer that he does so because that is the religion he is most familiar with. I don't believe it is a subversive attempt to make everyone Christian.

 

Yes. But only if you define "attack" as offering rational refutation to theistic claims which have adverse affect on society.

 

Like anti-theist books and movies? Banning religious education in public schools? Taking God out of society?

 

No, you've learned more about atheists if anything.

 

Its a good thing this hasn't occurred then. Not in the United States at any rate. Nor have any of the books by modern rationalists that I've read called for either of these. Indeed, all have suggested on some level that education on religion be present in public schools (obviously not any single religion) and that people (society) should be free to practice their beliefs and even speak out about them.

It appears that you're mischaracterizing the "atheist position" to fit an argument that is easier for you defeat. Sorry, this sort of dishonest tack isn't working.

 

I'm characterising the athiest position as athiests have presented it to me.

As you are well aware, I had no opinion on the atheist position before it was posited.

edit:

Too true. But I also learned more about Islam, Muslims around the world and blogosphere and current concepts in religious thought. I met many like minded people simply from interacting with them on websites and was exposed to a deeper understanding of Islamic history. So yeah, where previously, I merely dabbled in it occasionally now I have a much broader and deeper understanding of Islamic thought and thinkers.

 

You're mischaracterizing it as far as anyone here can tell. Which is dishonest.

You've not cited any examples or quoted any passages, just provided your own word that atheists (and we're talking about the so-called "New Atheist" authors that the OP is alluding to, not the atheists you encounter on this forum) are "attacking religion" and calling for the "anning religious education in public schools" and [t]aking God out of society."

Without specific examples, this is rhetoric that exists in your mind and not in reality.

 

That's more or less exactly what I was about to say. If theists weren't trying to force their religion on everyone, most atheists wouldn't bother writing books or making films etc pointing out that religion is stupid. Does he really think that atheists are so annoyed over "holidays displays, political campaigns, or self-help shelves of Barnes & Noble"?