The Evangelical Atheist

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by S.A.M., Feb 26, 2008.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.

    A.C. Grayling
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Clearly wars are fought by people, not methods of understanding the universe and the communists fought for a more "enlightened and scientific society (led by atheists, of course)" and killed millions in their quest for it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I am not a member of the communist club. I believe only that there are natural explanations for things.

    Millions were not killed in the name of atheism, you exaggerate, but I have no doubt many were persecuted for their beliefs by the government. Many religions were allowed to operate, even if they couldn't do so publicly. Some religions were identified with certain brands of nationalism, and were viewed as a threat to the state. Religion was justifiably linked to the upper class. Churches used religion to get rich, with the nod of the Tsars, while the people suffered in poverty.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SAM:

    Being educated isn't a talisman against religious indoctrination. In fact, it may even make some people more susceptible to it. Take yourself, for example.

    What happens is that educated people are more likely to question the deeper meaning of their life, and search for answers. Religion provides ready-made easy answers to the question of meaning. For some, that is irresistable.

    And your point is... what? This is the second time you've posted this like it means something.

    Don't put words in my mouth, please.

    Since this sidetrack is a waste of time, I won't bother responding.

    Religion takes many forms. Tribal religion is religion nonetheless. Religion can be animistic. Tribal peoples often believe in spirits who live around them. They do certain things to appease the spirits, or at least not to anger them. This is religion as much as Islam is religion.

    According to Dawkins, yes. And look where you are now - convinced that Islam is the One True Religion, and unwilling to consider seriously why you dismiss all other faiths as nonsense. Your indoctrination worked well.

    I can't recall. Why do you think the distinction is important?

    Actually, Dawkins discusses that very point in detail. You ought to read his book rather than making uneducated assumptions.

    I don't think anybody has ever set out with the explicit aim to create an atheist utopia. The same cannot be said for religious utopias. There are hundreds of religious cults, but not one atheist cult, as far as I know.

    From my reading of his book, which you refuse to read, I think he treats theists very fairly. Again, he explicitly concedes the point you are complaining about in the book. You ought to read it, rather than making uneducated assumptions.

    He doesn't advocate intolerance.

    Communism, as formulated, sought to bring about by force what Marx thought should have been a natural, unforced progression in society. The atheism of the communist leaders was an incidental adjunct to their idea of communism, and a useful tool to justify oppression and control of the people. In that sense, the communist version of atheism was used in a similar way that religion has been used for political purposes throughout history.

    Would there have been destruction and massacres without the communist leaders being atheists? Who knows? You can't easily disentangle one part of an ideology from the rest. What is clear, however, is that communist oppression has never been carried out solely in the name of atheism. The same cannot be said for religious pogroms.

    You claim that Russian priests were killed "for being theists". I say they were killed for being a political threat.

    Hardly. The vast majority of it is about the workers and the proletariat.

    Interesting point of view to consider, isn't it? Do you think Lenin was wrong? Obviously you do. Is that just an automatic reaction against communism, or is there some deeper reasoning involved? I wonder.

    Such as?

    So, you'll agree that atheism is not immoral, per se. Right?

    There's no particular lack of morality attached to atheism.

    Witch doctors often did more harm than good. The good that they did happened when they accidentally did something scientific, which had nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

    (Q) can speak for himself. I don't know whether he would call himself a secular humanist or not. If he does, then he is one example who supports my point that you can be both atheist and a secular humanist.

    If you know nothing of secular humanism, why not try looking at one of the many websites of secular humanist organisations?

    Pontificating about something you obviously know next to nothing about makes you look stupid.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What would a [non-evangelical] atheist look like? Someone who does not mind that other people hold profoundly false and primitive beliefs about the universe, on the basis of which they have spent centuries mass-murdering other people who do not hold exactly the same false and primitive beliefs as themselves- and still do?

    A.C. Grayling
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You're saying those individuals were not drawn, attracted or lured into more radicalised forms of their particular religion?

    If you read his book, you would realise he questions and discusses scientists he respects and are friends with, who are in fact religious.

    You mean like the Taliban's destruction of the statues? There are other examples, but you get my drift.

    Bali and the Australian embassy in Jakarta. The UK (train suicide bombers).

    Yes. Just because they were not worshiping the 'God' you worship or others worship today does not make them any less theistic.

    It can be. When threats of violence, abuse, hell is used to force children into staying in one particular culture or adopting a value system or religion, then it is considered abuse. When parents refuse to allow their children to have the freedom of choice in regards to religion, then yes, it can be construed as a form of abuse.

    I would suggest you read the book.

    What exactly is an "atheist utopia"?

    Communist rulers who claimed to be atheists and attempted to ban religion and every single other form of organisation, be it religious or otherwise, did so because they viewed any other form of authority over people as being a threat to their own power. In other words, all aspects of the community that could be construed as competition for power over the people were banned, be they religious organisations, sporting clubs, associations, etc.

    On the contrary, he points out that religions create intolerance which can and does at times lead to violence or threats of violence. His example of the experiences of David Mills shows just how intolerant some can be when it comes to their religion and how they can and do threaten others with violence if they dare speak out against it.

    As an atheist, I can assure you, I have never once in my life seen any propaganda calling for the culling of theists. So which propaganda is currently doing this?

    You are confusing atheism and communistic despots (many of whom were bought up as theists or come from theist's homes). Do you honestly think all atheists believe in what you are proposing?

    You are arguing this from a ridiculous standpoint. It is akin to someone saying that because there have been terrorists who were Muslims, it would make all Muslims terrorists.

    No. They were killed for rejecting the power of the State. They were killed because they refused to bow down to the dictator, and the dictator viewed that refusal as being a threat to his regime... replace 'dictator' with name of despot of choice...

    Religion is an interference in the power structure of despots.

    I disagree. You are basically stating that all atheists somehow lack morals. A bit far fetched, don't you think?

    You are saying atheists cannot be humanists? That we are somehow all uncaring and cold individuals who only care about ourselves?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    What difference would that make ?
    Or theists looking out for number one. So what? Again you seem to have completely misread Dawkins: he nowhere locates the evils of religion in the personal beliefs of the privileged few. He's not worried about reading the mind of Fearless Leader. If the Pope is an atheist, none of Dawkins's arguments change. If Stalin were shown to have been a theist, the atrocities of Stalinism would make no better examples for or against Dawkins's arguments than they do now.
    More thought, before making assumptions about bents, is in order. You are repeating basic and fairly simple misunderstandings of Dawkins's arguments throughout, here.
    Uh, otherwise ? Besides, different people criticising the same evil are quite likely to hit on some similarly based arguments against it - big deal.

    Btw: if you want some interesting parallels, compare the form and rhetoric of Stalin's arguments to those he was trained in, in the seminary, during his formative theistic youth.
    I couldn't. I nominate you, to make that argument.
    That's probably not true, on a percentage basis, even if all the harm done by Stalin was caused by his anti-religious propaganda ( a very silly hypothesis). The Catholic religion in the New World comes to mind.

    No, he is simply not arguing that the influence of personal theism on the powerful is at the core of the harm done by it. So when you keep attacking him as if he were, you are missing major points of his arguments. Essentially, every mention of Stalin on this thread is a straw man, irrelevant to Dawkins's approach.

    Maybe start here, since the subject has come up: Russia just prior to Stalin's rise to power was a strongly and oppressively theistic country. According to Dawkins, what are the likely effects of that on the political ideologies of the citizenry, in particular the ease with which they can be coerced and persuaded to mass evil ?
    You need a sarcasm emoticon - that's too close to stuff the nutcases claim sincerely.
     
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Sam, you're getting pwned and making yourself look silly. Give it up.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    spidergoat:

    I'm not a fundamentalist either, but that does not change the fact that 200,000 priests were murdered by the Soviets. For following their religion and to wipe out God from the society.

    As for millions killed in the name of athiesm, Stalin wrote a 5 step plan of Atheism for soviet society. Anyone against his atheist utopia for religious, political or other randomly assigned reason, became a target.
    http://www.atheisms.info/atheisms/soviet.html

    See also "Society of the Godless"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless


    Very nice. Another secular humanist, I take it.

    James:


    Or Dawkins.:shrug:
    IOW, educated people are more susceptible to extremism in religion? I see.


    Now you see why Dawkings frustrates me. These are his idea of what constitutes reasonable debate on religion. ie the beliefs of people like Collins and the "religious extremism" of the educated.

    Did these tribals do that? Or are we generalising what we believe again?


    Like you've decided all of it is nonsense, you mean? Oh wait the atheists position is the more intelligent one, so of course, one is not allowed to have an opinion on their beliefs. Clearly, one can only come to conclusions about the universe in one way.
    Because organised religion is very distinct from theism.
    I see no reason to wade through 400 pages of the rhetoric that he continually makes in his articles and lectures. From what I have heard him say, although he kindly sets aside Einsteins metaphorical God, ascribing metaphorical explanations for all that Einstein and the like ever said about God (its ALL in the interpretation), he seems to believe that he has the right to decide what religious scholars have debated for thousands of years and make judgments of all people on the basis of his opinion of what people should think.

    Perhaps you would care to look up Stalins Five Step plan for Atheism or ask any Chinese person what declaring themself as religious entails in their country.

    Perhaps you ought to give him the same advice. I hear he does not consider it necessary to study the religions he rants against.


    Clearly, calling people stupid and delusional because their beliefs are unlike yours, given that neither is falsifiable is a new form of tolerance. Most of the criticism against Dawkins has come from his own peers including atheists. And none of them have considered his form of polemic against theists as evocative of tolerance.

    A movement by atheists using anti-religion propaganda to suppress religion and leading to the massacre of millions of people based on random criteria including religion.
    Because of course, all religious pogroms have NOTHING to do with power equations or conflict for land or resources.

    All theists are a political threat in a society that has a Five Step Plan to wipe out God. Thats just semantics.


    Isn't that what Dawkins is addressing? The masses who are blindly followiing the duplicitous leaders? Being led around by someone other than him?


    I think in India we have managed to get more mileage out of communist theory than the Soviets. The lack of a 5 step program to wipe out God perhaps.


    All socities today. Regardless of differences in outlook and random acts of unkindness, most societies today are comprised of compassionate people looking out for each other.
    Its what I have been saying all along. Atheism is amoral.



    I did not imply they were brain surgeons, merely the connection between religion and scientific curiosity.


    Or call yourself that. Anyone can.


    Because of the disconnect between words and actions maybe. "I am a secular humanist" means nothing to me when its accompanied by " you're a delusional liar for having beliefs that differ from mine"

    Bells:

    I don't think they were religious, from what I have read in Dying to Win, its more like a group of young men getting together or being recruited by people they already know (and trust) into converting their frustrations into a statement. Since most of them are educated and from secular families, it would appear that there are elements of marxism involved, rebellion against the state etc. Religion is unimportant since Pape found that even atheists, Christians and Marxists are involved, the common factor being occupation ot perceived occupation and a desire to force a state to leave a land. This was true in Lebanon, Palestine as much as in Sri Lanka. Its an evolving phenomenon that appears to be a symptom of conflicts in modern society.

    He does that
    Or the destruction of thousands of churches/mosques/temples/statues by athiests in Russia, China, Cambodia etc? Oh wait, its only significant when thiests are doing it. Which is why there is no oooh and aaah over the bulding of a miliatry base on the ruins of the oldest city in the world in Babylon or the loss of irreplaceable treasures and historical documents from the many museums in Iraq.
    US embassies. UK troops bombing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there any disconnect?

    So does Dawkins worship science?
    Ah but thats your qualifier. According to Dawkins all religious parents are child abusers.
    Does he misrepresent himself in person?
    Claimed to be atheists? They called their form of government officially athiest, dispersed propaganda for godlessness, established groups for militant atheism, named so by themselves, wrote a 5 step plan to wipe out God from their society, destroyed all forms of religious edifices, sculptures, books, exiled, incarcerated, tortured and killed priests and nuns or sent them to re-education camps forcing them to deny their religious beliefs.

    If this is not militant atheism, what is?
    See previous comment.
    So if you were living in a society where there was a call to instigate reeducation of atheists into theism, you would not fight it?
    So in your opinion, the people who committed those atrocities in communist countries were not atheists? Seems odd to me when they constantly called themselves athiests. Were they lying?

    So now people calling themselves athiests and banning religion are not atheists. Okay.

    Athiesm per se has no requirement for morality.
    I think simply calling yourself a secular humanist while imposing your beliefs on others is an oxymoron.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ah, he wants to lead the masses. So did Stalin.

    God Save Us from those who think they know whats best for us.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
    Dawkins was educated in an Anglican school

    I already did.

    How about on a per capita basis?
    He is using the same arguments that Stalin was. The idiocy of the masses that needs liberation.

    Like society today?
    So he wants to inspire the next Stalin. I see.

    No, I don't. You need objectivity to not dismiss the efforts of so many.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And what is the statement? How about the following, which appeared in the papers today:

    In the sermon, organised by an Islamic youth organisation and delivered a few kilometres from the home village of convicted Bali bombers Amrozi and Mukhlas, Bashir likened tourists in Bali to "worms, snakes, maggots", and specifically referred to the immorality of Australian infidels.

    The address was caught on video by an Australian university student.

    "The youth movement here must aspire to a martyrdom death," said the cleric, who was convicted of conspiracy over the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians, but was later cleared and released from prison.

    "The young must be first at the front line - don't hide at the back. You must be at the front, die as martyrs and all your sins will be forgiven. This is how to achieve forgiveness."

    Source
    Do you think this particular cleric is saying that religion is somehow unimportant? Do you think he is not somehow 'preaching' when he says that one is absolved or forgiven of all sins if they kill "infidels"? What statement do you think Bashir is trying to get across when he made the following comment?

    Bashir likened non-Muslims to crawling animals. "Worms, snakes, maggots - those are animals that crawl. Take a look at Bali ... those infidel tourists. They are naked."

    I'm guessing there is morality that stems from theism somewhere in there...?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Gah! You need to read the book, Sam.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What makes you think there isn't?

    Last I checked, the Australian embassy was not a US embassy. The attacks in Bali was not on an Australian 'interest' target. The attacks in Bali killed more Indonesians then they did anyone else and caused Indonesia more pain. Is Indonesia involved in Iraq or Afghanistan? No. And what about good old Bashir? Do you think he is somehow connecting "infidels" or foreigners with Iraq and Afghanistan when he referred to them as:

    "Worms, snakes, maggots - those are animals that crawl. Take a look at Bali ... those infidel tourists. They are naked."

    As he said, "take a look at Bali.. those infidel tourists".. Do you think he is making a political connection there? Somehow, describing them as "infidels" kind of tells me he is not.

    Can anyone worship science?

    Is it even possible?

    Is there an altar of science that one can light candles on for the science "Gods' to grant a new discovery?

    You really do need to read the book Sam. He qualifies parents who use "hell" as a threat to children are abusing their children because of the psychological damage such fear can cause to a child (as one example). He quotes passages from interviews, books and movies of the experiences of people who have had to seek professional help from the damage their parents had caused them in the name of their religion and the constant fear and terror they felt growing up about going to hell if they did anything wrong at all. Personally, I think Dawkins is right. It is child abuse when you cause such psychological fear in children. Are you saying he is wrong about this?

    Do you think a parent is abusing their children if they force them to think or believe a certain way? Denying them the right to determine or question aspects of their lives, culture or society, threatening them with hell if they dare question or doubt? That is what Dawkins mentions in his book.

    I have never met him. Have you?

    But I am curious. How can you comment on his book and critique it if you have never read it?

    Why do you think they did it? Could it be they did it because they viewed religion as being a threat to their power or rule?

    Dawkins actually mentions how the Catholic Church used to forcibly remove children from Jewish and Muslim homes if the parents dared not convert their children or themselves into Catholicism, and those children were forced into re-education camps. Is one any different to the other?

    Of course I would.

    But again, where is this "anti-theist propaganda directly leading to mass murder of theists" of which you speak? Is it current? Or is it from history and involves power mad despots?

    Did I miss the atheism memo?

    They may have been atheists. As I said, many were brought up in theist homes. But what does it matter if they were? Does their atheism somehow make their crimes against humanity and theists worse then when someone like Bashir calling for the killing and bashing of "infidels"? Or when a Christian Hitler massacred millions.. That's not so bad because he was a theist, but an atheist doing it.. well!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Doesn't it? Does morality have to come from God? Or are individuals somehow unable to be moral on their own? Tell me something Sam, do you think you would be lacking in morals if you were an atheist? Or did you only learn about morality or morals from your religion?

    Is Dawkins imposing his atheism on you? Is he attempting to force you to become an atheist? Am I? Is anyone?
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    So Bells Dawkins is your Priest. Halleluaia. Hitler was not a Christian, everything the Nazi's did points to their viewpoint on natural selection. This is diametrically opposite of Christian beliefs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

    :bugeye:

    And i can show you absolute proof from papers much more involved than that Wiki link. Go search for yourself and you will see what motivated the Nazi's. And these are not Christian sites either but written by Ph.D's who are subjective and not Evangelical Atheist's. The truth is the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts.

    If a Christian follows the teaching of Jesus Christ then Hitler was the anti-Christ.

    And where did the Catholic church ever take away Jewish and Muslim children? What a load of bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    And you claim that you were once a Christian, weather that is true or not is debatable. So Hitler was once a Christian also. Are you still a Christian just because you once were? You should study and read about the Nazi's, you will be surprised when you find out what the truth is.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Pretty much the same one that the mass media makes every day since 9/11 with Islamofascism, Islamic terrorism, Muslim terrorists, Mohammed cartoons and films like Wilders and van Goghs. Demonising people is not relegated to the west.

    Aren't those all covered by freedom of expression? Besides, its only the secular educated that blow themselves and you won't find most of those in a mosque. In fact, I believe that of the odd 400 suicide bombers, only two have come from a mosque and both from the same one in SE Asia.

    I mean, he does that, I saw his debate with Collins.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I must have missed it. Did they put it in the last page in fine print? Cos with all the

    TALIBAN DESTROYS BUDDHIST SCULPTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I never saw an equivalent

    US DESTROYS BABYLON!!!!!

    A priest calling a nonbeliever a nonbeliver is as political as the western media defining only Muslims by their religion.

    And sorry about the Australian embassy, I believe there was some land conflict involved, where a country that has taken its entire landmass by occupying and genocide of an aboriginal population was telling another country they dare not occupy another or something like that.
    Apparently one can, because it competes with religion and is mutually exclusive according to Dawkins.

    And there are no atheist parents who do the same?
    Again, are there no athiest parents who do the same?

    I like attending public speaking sessions. I think people are more honest when they don't have time to coach their responses in language. You should hear him speak sometime.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You tell me, I'm the one with teh God Delusion, remember?


    The first country to officially declare itself athiest was the Soviet Union. They killed over 20 million people in an effort to establish their officially atheist society. If this had been done to form a Christian, Muslim or Jewish society, there would be no argument behind the reasoning.

    All the rest who followed this manifesto, repeated the same results. China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea.

    And for some reason, militant atheists devolve into eugenicists.

    Also a pattern in all of the above places.

    I believe Hitler was an athiest. If you read his unofficial conversations its pretty clear that he had no love for the church. But he was a master of propaganda and used words that he knew would aid his cause. Just like the Soviet Union, after realising he needed the Christians to fight a losing battle, he made statements supporting Christianity.

    http://davnet.org/kevin/articles/table.html

    I don't know. As an indoctrinated member of a 5000 year old religious society, I have no comparison. However I see that rape, murder, pedophilia are not immoral in animals.

    Hate the sin and love the sinner? How did that work out for homosexuality?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  18. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    Sam, is somebody disagreeing with you about something and explaining why they disagree with you evangelism? If I argued what caused WWI and gave some explanations which indicate why I'm right, would you call it evangelism?

    I would be arguing for a position of something that happened and says something about the world. The same as atheists do. They argue their points about the universe and religion, both of which pertain to things that happened and say something about the universe. God is a scientific hypothesis, a very bad one. A hypothesis which argues about the causes of WW1 is a scientific hypothesis. There's essentially no difference.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    There is no scientific hypothesis without falsifiability.
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    And, if you'd read carefully, you'd know that whatever Pol Pot did was not in the name of atheism or had anything to do with atheism.

    He destroyed those ministries with equal abandonment.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Pol Pot was an athiest. He banned worship, tore down temples and killed or reeducated priests.

    maybe he did it all because he had indigestion. The fact remains, nothing he did was opposed to his beliefs.
     
  22. francois Schwat? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,515
    A good hypothesis is testable. But the theory of a god is one that attempts say something absolute about this world. A world with a god is much different from one without. So I'll repeat my point from before:

    Is somebody disagreeing with you about something and explaining why they disagree with you evangelism? If I argued what caused WWI and gave some explanations which indicate why I'm right, would you call it evangelism?
     
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Everything he did had nothing to do with the claims of theists.

    Yours is a twisted deranged view, unfounded and biased in every way.

    But, you are free to demonstrate that Pol Pot did what he did in the name of atheism.

    You're on deck, sam, go for it...

    "The Khmer Rouge targeted Buddhist monks, Western-educated intellectuals (apart from themselves), educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, people who appeared to be intellectuals (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese."
     

Share This Page