Skashion
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is slightly, only slightly more realistic, but you'll probably lose your rag at some point and respond with a more classic NF response, and get yourself banned. #endofendofnijinsky's fetlocks said:
a secular society by 2030
- Thread starter tonea2003
- Start date
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:
#trueenuffinnitbro4shure
rather apt
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-doyle/richard-dawkins-myth-of-the-angry-atheist_b_2363118.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew- ... 63118.html</a>?
Richard Dawkins and the Myth of the Angry Atheist
Atheists are angry, twitching creatures. When faced with the godly they foam at the mouth, wailing and gnashing their teeth. Their sense of moral and intellectual superiority is a fragile thing, easily bruised. They deserve our pity, not our scorn.
This, at least, is the way in which prominent figures in the so-called "New Atheism" movement have been characterised in certain sections of the media. Commentators delight in branding the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and A. C. Grayling as 'angry' or 'cantankerous' or, worst of all, 'fundamentalist atheist', an oxymoron that betrays a basic misunderstanding of both fundamentalism and atheism.
This is hardly surprising. When backed into a corner, the argumentum ad hominem seems an attractive escape route, even if it involves the imputation of anger where none exists, or the misinterpretation of strong rhetoric as indicative of a lack of objectivity. We saw this in Alom Shaha's review of Dawkins's two-part documentary series The Root of All Evil? for Channel 4, in which Shaha claimed that Dawkins "seems to have chosen a deliberately condescending, patronising and aggressive approach, unnecessarily re-enforcing the notion that scientists are arrogant bigots themselves".
This is a fashionable thing to say, but it doesn't bear much relation to the facts. The worst you can say of Dawkins in these programmes is that he occasionally appears to lose patience with his interviewees (a tendency he has since learned to curb). Aggression can only really be claimed if the dictionary definition is abandoned. Dawkins's rhetoric is no more acerbic than one hears in parliamentary debates, and yet to my knowledge nobody has suggested to Ed Miliband that he should go easy on the invective when deriding Tory policy. Shaha elsewhere berates "the 'angry atheist' brigade". This is another phantom, a projection. Like the 'PC brigade', it only really exists in the minds of the people who deploy the phrase.
It's not a particularly new technique. Take the comic book tracts of Jack T. Chick, an American evangelist who seems to delight in hatemongering in the name of Christ (I was first introduced to his work as a child and, as a devout Catholic, was rather taken aback by the description of the Vatican as the "Mother of Abominations"). Chick's representation of scientists is unflattering to say the least. In one tract, entitled Big Daddy?, we see a lecture in evolutionary biology interrupted by a polite, young Christian student. When the student mentions the Biblical account of the Earth's creation, the lecturer is depicted as visibly sweating and screams the words: "HOLD IT YOU FANATIC!! I could have you jailed for that!!" The sheer lack of subtlety is hilarious.
Of course, Chick is an extreme example, and no thoughtful Christian could take him seriously. But the idea of the intransigent, antagonistic scientist is familiar enough, not restricted to the extremists. It is a commonplace perception based on a false characterisation of atheism that has somehow gained credibility. It is a caricature designed to undermine critics of religion so that legitimate questions can be dismissed as 'sneering'. Moreover, it is experientially unsound. I have never seen any of the 'New Atheists' react with such ferocity. Even when faced with an intellect as unrefined as Bill O'Reilly's, Dawkins manages to keep his cool. And that's quite an accomplishment.
Leaving aside the possibility that, in some cases, anger is a legitimate response (as posited by Greta Christina in her book Why Are You Atheists So Angry?), what interests me is the way in which commentators continue to argue against imaginary foes. A good example is Mehdi Hasan's recent article for The Huffington Post UK, which doesn't so much attack Dawkins as it does 'Dawkins'.
In his article, Hasan restates a number of common anti-atheist arguments, all of which have been successfully rebutted innumerable times by brighter people than me. My concern here is not the obvious weakness of Hasan's arguments, but rather what this article tells us about the misrepresentation of atheists in general. The likes of Christina Odone may call Dawkins a "turkey", and inaccurately describe his views as examples of "prejudice and bigotry", but that's just about the level of sophistication we've come to expect from her. I expect more from Mehdi Hasan.
"I believe in God," he writes. "Shame on me, eh? Faith, in the disdainful eyes of the atheist, is irredeemably irrational; to have faith, as Dawkins put it to me, is to have 'belief in something without evidence'. This, however, is sheer nonsense. Are we seriously expected to believe that the likes of Descartes, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Rousseau, Leibniz and Locke were all unthinking or irrational idiots?"
No, we are not. And no such expectation has been articulated, at least not by Dawkins. Nor has anyone suggested that Hasan should feel "shame" for his beliefs. But what this straw man argument so clearly reveals is a reluctance to engage in the debate properly. Religious positions would be better served if their proponents addressed the actual criticisms, rather than taking a defensive stance against the imagined disdain of those who disagree. Like Robert Frost's drunken cow, they bellow on a knoll against the sky.
Many religious thinkers are happy to concede that faith, by its very definition, is irrational. A dearth of evidence does not pose a problem for faith, it is an inherent corollary of it. And what's so wrong with that? If there are human beings who have no irrational tendencies, I haven't met them. Hasan, however, is loath to make this admission.
What this tells us is that the subjectivity of religious experience can overpower rational instincts in even the sharpest of minds. This is why the religious need to be wary when they participate in this debate. It's clear enough that Hasan wouldn't tolerate such sloppiness in any other realm of discussion. He is fairly damning, for instance, about Sunny Hundal's speculations that the Iranian regime are developing nuclear weapons. On this topic, at least, evidence matters.
But when it comes to religion, Hasan needlessly wrangles over tortuous semantic distinctions between "evidence" and "proof" as a means to circumvent the argument. He affirms that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I can't prove God but you can't disprove him", as though Dawkins hadn't already made the identical point in his bestseller The God Delusion. It is known as the "spectrum of theistic probability", and Dawkins makes it clear that as a scientist he cannot possibly be at the very end of this spectrum as a "strong atheist", but that he occupies the position of the de facto atheist, the belief that there is a "very low probability" of God's existence, "but short of zero".
Dawkins made this very point during a recent interview conducted by Hasan for Al-Jazeera, so it cannot have escaped his attention. Yet in Hasan's recent article it is the imaginary Dawkins who once again takes a beating; he of the frothing mouth and stamping feet who angrily berates the idiocy of his opponents. I'd quite like to meet that man. I'm sure he'd be quite entertaining. Unfortunately, and crucially, he doesn't exist.
The aggressive atheist is not the norm. I fully believe Rabbi David Wolpe when he says he has been bombarded by belligerent emails from non-believers, but the internet is seething with trolls, and these missives can hardly be said to be representative of atheist thought in general. I, for one, have never met a genuinely angry atheist. Should I take it on faith that they exist?
I'm all for having the debate. But let's not have the debate with shadows and ghouls.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-doyle/richard-dawkins-myth-of-the-angry-atheist_b_2363118.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew- ... 63118.html</a>?
Richard Dawkins and the Myth of the Angry Atheist
Atheists are angry, twitching creatures. When faced with the godly they foam at the mouth, wailing and gnashing their teeth. Their sense of moral and intellectual superiority is a fragile thing, easily bruised. They deserve our pity, not our scorn.
This, at least, is the way in which prominent figures in the so-called "New Atheism" movement have been characterised in certain sections of the media. Commentators delight in branding the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and A. C. Grayling as 'angry' or 'cantankerous' or, worst of all, 'fundamentalist atheist', an oxymoron that betrays a basic misunderstanding of both fundamentalism and atheism.
This is hardly surprising. When backed into a corner, the argumentum ad hominem seems an attractive escape route, even if it involves the imputation of anger where none exists, or the misinterpretation of strong rhetoric as indicative of a lack of objectivity. We saw this in Alom Shaha's review of Dawkins's two-part documentary series The Root of All Evil? for Channel 4, in which Shaha claimed that Dawkins "seems to have chosen a deliberately condescending, patronising and aggressive approach, unnecessarily re-enforcing the notion that scientists are arrogant bigots themselves".
This is a fashionable thing to say, but it doesn't bear much relation to the facts. The worst you can say of Dawkins in these programmes is that he occasionally appears to lose patience with his interviewees (a tendency he has since learned to curb). Aggression can only really be claimed if the dictionary definition is abandoned. Dawkins's rhetoric is no more acerbic than one hears in parliamentary debates, and yet to my knowledge nobody has suggested to Ed Miliband that he should go easy on the invective when deriding Tory policy. Shaha elsewhere berates "the 'angry atheist' brigade". This is another phantom, a projection. Like the 'PC brigade', it only really exists in the minds of the people who deploy the phrase.
It's not a particularly new technique. Take the comic book tracts of Jack T. Chick, an American evangelist who seems to delight in hatemongering in the name of Christ (I was first introduced to his work as a child and, as a devout Catholic, was rather taken aback by the description of the Vatican as the "Mother of Abominations"). Chick's representation of scientists is unflattering to say the least. In one tract, entitled Big Daddy?, we see a lecture in evolutionary biology interrupted by a polite, young Christian student. When the student mentions the Biblical account of the Earth's creation, the lecturer is depicted as visibly sweating and screams the words: "HOLD IT YOU FANATIC!! I could have you jailed for that!!" The sheer lack of subtlety is hilarious.
Of course, Chick is an extreme example, and no thoughtful Christian could take him seriously. But the idea of the intransigent, antagonistic scientist is familiar enough, not restricted to the extremists. It is a commonplace perception based on a false characterisation of atheism that has somehow gained credibility. It is a caricature designed to undermine critics of religion so that legitimate questions can be dismissed as 'sneering'. Moreover, it is experientially unsound. I have never seen any of the 'New Atheists' react with such ferocity. Even when faced with an intellect as unrefined as Bill O'Reilly's, Dawkins manages to keep his cool. And that's quite an accomplishment.
Leaving aside the possibility that, in some cases, anger is a legitimate response (as posited by Greta Christina in her book Why Are You Atheists So Angry?), what interests me is the way in which commentators continue to argue against imaginary foes. A good example is Mehdi Hasan's recent article for The Huffington Post UK, which doesn't so much attack Dawkins as it does 'Dawkins'.
In his article, Hasan restates a number of common anti-atheist arguments, all of which have been successfully rebutted innumerable times by brighter people than me. My concern here is not the obvious weakness of Hasan's arguments, but rather what this article tells us about the misrepresentation of atheists in general. The likes of Christina Odone may call Dawkins a "turkey", and inaccurately describe his views as examples of "prejudice and bigotry", but that's just about the level of sophistication we've come to expect from her. I expect more from Mehdi Hasan.
"I believe in God," he writes. "Shame on me, eh? Faith, in the disdainful eyes of the atheist, is irredeemably irrational; to have faith, as Dawkins put it to me, is to have 'belief in something without evidence'. This, however, is sheer nonsense. Are we seriously expected to believe that the likes of Descartes, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Rousseau, Leibniz and Locke were all unthinking or irrational idiots?"
No, we are not. And no such expectation has been articulated, at least not by Dawkins. Nor has anyone suggested that Hasan should feel "shame" for his beliefs. But what this straw man argument so clearly reveals is a reluctance to engage in the debate properly. Religious positions would be better served if their proponents addressed the actual criticisms, rather than taking a defensive stance against the imagined disdain of those who disagree. Like Robert Frost's drunken cow, they bellow on a knoll against the sky.
Many religious thinkers are happy to concede that faith, by its very definition, is irrational. A dearth of evidence does not pose a problem for faith, it is an inherent corollary of it. And what's so wrong with that? If there are human beings who have no irrational tendencies, I haven't met them. Hasan, however, is loath to make this admission.
What this tells us is that the subjectivity of religious experience can overpower rational instincts in even the sharpest of minds. This is why the religious need to be wary when they participate in this debate. It's clear enough that Hasan wouldn't tolerate such sloppiness in any other realm of discussion. He is fairly damning, for instance, about Sunny Hundal's speculations that the Iranian regime are developing nuclear weapons. On this topic, at least, evidence matters.
But when it comes to religion, Hasan needlessly wrangles over tortuous semantic distinctions between "evidence" and "proof" as a means to circumvent the argument. He affirms that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I can't prove God but you can't disprove him", as though Dawkins hadn't already made the identical point in his bestseller The God Delusion. It is known as the "spectrum of theistic probability", and Dawkins makes it clear that as a scientist he cannot possibly be at the very end of this spectrum as a "strong atheist", but that he occupies the position of the de facto atheist, the belief that there is a "very low probability" of God's existence, "but short of zero".
Dawkins made this very point during a recent interview conducted by Hasan for Al-Jazeera, so it cannot have escaped his attention. Yet in Hasan's recent article it is the imaginary Dawkins who once again takes a beating; he of the frothing mouth and stamping feet who angrily berates the idiocy of his opponents. I'd quite like to meet that man. I'm sure he'd be quite entertaining. Unfortunately, and crucially, he doesn't exist.
The aggressive atheist is not the norm. I fully believe Rabbi David Wolpe when he says he has been bombarded by belligerent emails from non-believers, but the internet is seething with trolls, and these missives can hardly be said to be representative of atheist thought in general. I, for one, have never met a genuinely angry atheist. Should I take it on faith that they exist?
I'm all for having the debate. But let's not have the debate with shadows and ghouls.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
'Angry atheism' - you really couldn't make it up.
If only we had the tolerance shown by those of faith.
You know - those who tortured and burned heretics,or massacred those of a different faith wholesale,or blow innocent folk up by detonating themselves in the local market place daily,or those wonderful pro-life Catholics who blow up abortion clinics.
Remind me just how many folk are killed every day by militant atheism?
We have so much to learn from the devout.
If only we had the tolerance shown by those of faith.
You know - those who tortured and burned heretics,or massacred those of a different faith wholesale,or blow innocent folk up by detonating themselves in the local market place daily,or those wonderful pro-life Catholics who blow up abortion clinics.
Remind me just how many folk are killed every day by militant atheism?
We have so much to learn from the devout.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWVITd4_d0M#t=10s[/youtube]
These types of Christians need to go away quickly.
I think after watching that video that that man is possibly the furthest thing away from Christ that I have ever seen. He's that far away from Christ that I'm actually considering the possibility that he's the anti-Christ.
These types of Christians need to go away quickly.
I think after watching that video that that man is possibly the furthest thing away from Christ that I have ever seen. He's that far away from Christ that I'm actually considering the possibility that he's the anti-Christ.
Plaything of the gods
Well-Known Member
There's one born every minute.
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
No-one chooses what their nature will be. If "nature" means anything at all it is that which is beyond choice and will.
The funny thing about these kinds of addresses by religious leaders is that they try so hard to convince others that they are deep thinkers trying to enlighten a shallow world but this is clearly inaccurate. They are the most superficial among us. They are the ones who judge people, how they ought to act and how they ought to be treated based on appearance. According to them, the body and not the brain is the primary factor when it comes to sexuality etc. According to them, preferences are determined not by the make up of the brain but on the makeup of the genitals. They deny the reality of the brain and this should come as no surprise because quite clearly they are strangers with their own.
Stand up comedians launch UK’s first atheist church in Islington
The first atheist church in the country is set to open in Islington at the start of the new year.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/stand_up_comedians_launch_uk_s_first_atheist_church_in_islington_1_1747944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/ ... _1_1747944</a>
Stand-up comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans will bring together a godless congregation in the Nave in St Paul’s Road, Canonbury for services – with wedding ceremonies and funerals for non-believers even on the cards.
News of the church, which will meet on the first Sunday of every month starting with a service on the Feast of Epiphany on January 6, comes after the census results revealed last week that nearly one in three residents are atheists.
Mr Jones and Ms Evans, a musical improv comedian who had a BBC Radio 4 show called Showstopper, came up with the idea for The Sunday Assembly after agreeing they liked many aspects of religion but didn’t believe in a god.
“We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement,” said Mr Jones, who recently became the first person to sell out the Sydney Opera House by personally selling all tickets by hand.
He continued: “It’s part atheist church and part foot-stomping show. There will be a speaker on a theme each month but there will also be an awesome house band, which Pippa will lead. We’ll be helping people try and stick to their new year’s resolutions in the first service.”
The comics will invite speakers to talk on a theme every month, starting with children’s author Andy Stanton, who writes the Mr Gum series, on the topic of beginnings. Future guest speakers include fellow comedians Josie Long, Lucy Porter and Arthur Smith.
Mr Jones added: “We all should be ludicrously excited every single moment to be alive in one of the best countries in the world. If the church becomes a useful place for others, that would be a good thing. We just want people to feel encouraged and excited when they leave.”
But the Rev Saviour Grech, Catholic parish priest of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Church in Amwell Street, Finsbury, said: “How can you be an atheist and worship in a church? Surely it’s a contradiction of terms. Who will they be singing to?
“It is important to debate and engage with atheists but for them to establish a church like any other religious denomination is going too far. I’m cautious about it.”
The first atheist church in the country is set to open in Islington at the start of the new year.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/stand_up_comedians_launch_uk_s_first_atheist_church_in_islington_1_1747944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/ ... _1_1747944</a>
Stand-up comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans will bring together a godless congregation in the Nave in St Paul’s Road, Canonbury for services – with wedding ceremonies and funerals for non-believers even on the cards.
News of the church, which will meet on the first Sunday of every month starting with a service on the Feast of Epiphany on January 6, comes after the census results revealed last week that nearly one in three residents are atheists.
Mr Jones and Ms Evans, a musical improv comedian who had a BBC Radio 4 show called Showstopper, came up with the idea for The Sunday Assembly after agreeing they liked many aspects of religion but didn’t believe in a god.
“We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement,” said Mr Jones, who recently became the first person to sell out the Sydney Opera House by personally selling all tickets by hand.
He continued: “It’s part atheist church and part foot-stomping show. There will be a speaker on a theme each month but there will also be an awesome house band, which Pippa will lead. We’ll be helping people try and stick to their new year’s resolutions in the first service.”
The comics will invite speakers to talk on a theme every month, starting with children’s author Andy Stanton, who writes the Mr Gum series, on the topic of beginnings. Future guest speakers include fellow comedians Josie Long, Lucy Porter and Arthur Smith.
Mr Jones added: “We all should be ludicrously excited every single moment to be alive in one of the best countries in the world. If the church becomes a useful place for others, that would be a good thing. We just want people to feel encouraged and excited when they leave.”
But the Rev Saviour Grech, Catholic parish priest of Saint Peter and Saint Paul Church in Amwell Street, Finsbury, said: “How can you be an atheist and worship in a church? Surely it’s a contradiction of terms. Who will they be singing to?
“It is important to debate and engage with atheists but for them to establish a church like any other religious denomination is going too far. I’m cautious about it.”
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
tonea2003 said:
I'm assuming it'll have sold out already then with such big names attending?
I'd have thought the shittest part of being religious is having to attend church so why the fuck atheists want a shot at it is beyond me.
I think it's better to tread one's own path to be honest, leave the atheist rebellion and acts of terror to Long, Porter and of course, Smith.
Jesus would fucking weep.
Plaything of the gods
Well-Known Member
re "Stand up comedians launch UK’s first atheist church in Islington"
Unfortunately, the "sense of community" comes about because of an unshakable shared belief in a higher authority that holds everything together. Very like football and supporting a club in that respect - what would Bluemoon be without City?
I say unfortunately because a sense of community is a Good Thing but a lasting one that doesn't lead to externalised hate and violence (us and them-ness) is perhaps an Impossible Thing, at least in our crowded, competitive world.
Unfortunately, the "sense of community" comes about because of an unshakable shared belief in a higher authority that holds everything together. Very like football and supporting a club in that respect - what would Bluemoon be without City?
I say unfortunately because a sense of community is a Good Thing but a lasting one that doesn't lead to externalised hate and violence (us and them-ness) is perhaps an Impossible Thing, at least in our crowded, competitive world.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
Even as an atheist myself,I can't help but think that this 'atheist church' business is a load of nonsense.
Why on earth do folk need to come together to celebrate their non-belief?
Is their atheism strengthened by being together with other unbelievers?
And what about agnostics?
Are they welcome,or do they have to set up their own rival church so we can have some Northern Ireland style sectarianism,only with atheists and fence-sitters hating each other over an imaginary friend who either definitely or probably doesn't exist?
Quite bizarre.
Why on earth do folk need to come together to celebrate their non-belief?
Is their atheism strengthened by being together with other unbelievers?
And what about agnostics?
Are they welcome,or do they have to set up their own rival church so we can have some Northern Ireland style sectarianism,only with atheists and fence-sitters hating each other over an imaginary friend who either definitely or probably doesn't exist?
Quite bizarre.
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
HorshamBlue said:
I'd assume they all get together and just laugh smugly at how they know for a fact God doesn't exist and that this knowledge makes them superior to everyone else.
Meanwhile across the road in a Church a load of Catholics sit about feeling smug because they know for a fact God does exist and this knowledge makes them superior to everyone else.
I find it sad that religious people, or extreme ones anyway, box themselves in and limit their world view to a bizarre degree.
I find it perhaps more tragic that some people without faith feel the need to do the exact same thing only on the other side of the fence.
Five years from now Atheists will be knocking on your door with their own little Bible and asking if they can come in for a chat whilst they try to convert you.
Remind me of the Nietzsche quote
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Or to be more succinct, the lunatic fringe of the Atheists have decided that if you can't beat them then join them.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
TheMightyQuinn said:
Nietzsche also said that God is dead.
Some atheists are daft.
Some god botherers are daft.
Such is life.
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
He does imply that he was once living and that we killed him but yes he did say that.
That's been my point all along, anyone who wants to label themselves is clearly a bit insecure and needs to be part of some circle jerking social group.
I do believe in God yet I don't label myself as one thing or another. By the same token, and I could be wrong, but whilst you don't believe in God you most likely don't label yourself as belonging to one atheist cult or another.
In essence, we're both examples of the perfect believer/non believer as we're not interested in ramming anything down the others throat or pointing and laughing because our beliefs don't identically synchronise.
nijinsky's fetlocks
Well-Known Member
TheMightyQuinn said:
Yep - I think I can live with that.
andyhinch
Well-Known Member
R.I.P. Godnijinsky's fetlocks said:
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
TheMightyQuinn said:
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,556
That is pretty much how I imagine TMQ anyway.