The church of the Non-Believers

pH

A good article in Wired, covering many points.

This bit I found particularly telling:

Wired wrote:

I RETURN FROM OXFORD enthusiastic for argument. I immediately begin trying out Dawkins' appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. "Who here is an atheist?" I ask.

Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, "I am!"

But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: "You would be."

"Why?"

"Because you enjoy pissing people off."

"Well, that's true."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism_pr.html

A longish and well written article, examining evangelical atheism (albeit from a mainly US perspective).

lostexpectation

pH wrote:

A good article in Wired, covering many points.

This bit I found particularly telling:


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism_pr.html

A longish and well written article, examining evangelical atheism (albeit from a mainly US perspective).

i think its a terrible article atleast it annoys the hell of me with him using phrases like 'new athiest' constantly and evenagical atheism, its the same ol thing we've had from people who don't like proactive athism, did anyone see this weeks south park it has dawkins in it.

Scofflaw

Reminds me of what I don't like about Dawkins' point of view. It's logical, but it's also ideological. It relies, as nearly all non-religious ideologies do, on the perfectibility of mankind.

I think Dawkins honestly believes that most people are logical, or can become so once their superstitions are cleared away - an absurd belief. All the evidence suggests that people will have superstitions, in much the same way that they will have drugs, and drink. Prohibition is no more an answer to religion than it was to either of those.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

Scofflaw wrote:

Reminds me of what I don't like about Dawkins' point of view. It's logical, but it's also ideological. It relies, as nearly all non-religious ideologies do, on the perfectibility of mankind.

I think Dawkins honestly believes that most people are logical, or can become so once their superstitions are cleared away - an absurd belief. All the evidence suggests that people will have superstitions, in much the same way that they will have drugs, and drink. Prohibition is no more an answer to religion than it was to either of those.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yeah but he is saying that religion gets far too easy an ride compared to drugs and drink

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Prohibition is no more an answer to religion than it was to either of those.

What has made you think that Dawkins is calling for prohibition?

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

What has made you think that Dawkins is calling for prohibition?

I don't think he is. Actually, it's uncertain what call to action he is making. He'd like people to be more rational, but that's not going to happen just by wishing, so what else can be done? A next option that some people would choose is the Prohibition option - not because it's sensible, but because it is the usual option when people turn out to be less than perfect. I am fairly certain that Dawkins is too rational to go down that road, but I would not assume that of all evangelical atheists.

By Prohibition I am drawing an obvious historical parallel, but I do not necessarily refer to legislation directly forbidding religion - I would include all prohibitory tactics. While they may serve to take religion out of the operation of the state, as does the church-state separation in the US, they clearly do not serve to diminish religious passions, which are if anything inflamed by what they perceive of as persecution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Wired have an cover story about modern atheism in this months issue

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

Only bought the mag today, haven't had a time to read it, but thought I would point it out to people here. Will add my take on it once I have read it (probably on the bus tomorrow morning .... monday morning ... groan ...)

pH

So good it needed 2 threads?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

So good it needed 2 threads?

whoops

Mods can you merge my post into pH's original thread

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I think Dawkins honestly believes that most people are logical, or can become so once their superstitions are cleared away - an absurd belief.

Their children are ripe for the picking though

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Their children are ripe for the picking though

That's a verrrrry disturbing way of putting it. Unfortunately (a) children are even less reasonable, so (b) we'd have to teach them logic as if it was a faith, so (c) we'd be no better than the religious we (or Dawkins) decry.

cordially,
Scofflaw