A breath of fresh athiest air: Jeff Sparrow in the Guardian 1/12/15

antiskeptic

We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists

robindch

Mr Sparrow is quite confused.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists

Whatever your opinions on Dawkins or Harris are, you have to at least agree that they make statements that they are prepared to defend with rational discourse

The criticism of Dawkins and Harris can be summed up as 'How dare they say such insensitive things' Which is intended to shut down debate and rule such topics to be off limits for discussion.

Dawkins gets in trouble for defending his beliefs quite stridently. The likes of PZ Myers and the other atheist plus types want to shut control language and control what thoughts others are allowed to have.

Skeptics and critical thinkers should respect debate and freedom of expression even where we disagree with what others have to say.
We should win debates by having better arguments, not by preventing the other side from speaking.

Bristolscale7

Harris and Dawkins are not wrong, they're just assholes.

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

The criticism of Dawkins and Harris can be summed up as 'How dare they say such insensitive things' Which is intended to shut down debate and rule such topics to be off limits for discussion.

Might be more accurate to sum up the religious response as "My beliefs are part of my identity - how dare you offend me by offending my beliefs!" - the intention is to conflate criticism of an idea (which most people agree is fine) with criticism of a person (which most people agree is out of bounds).

As a debating tactic, it's quite successful.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

Might be more accurate to sum up the religious response as "My beliefs are part of my identity - how dare you offend me by offending my beliefs!" - the intention is to conflate criticism of an idea (which most people agree is fine) with criticism of a person (which most people agree is out of bounds).

As a debating tactic, it's quite successful.

Yeah that's true as well, but these critics of Dawkins and Harris are extending beyond just religion. They have become champions of the 'offended'. They deliberately 'take offense' at any and all language that they deem to be 'insensitive' or 'offensive' and will try to shut down discussions by insisting that any conversation must only exist within a limited boundary that never offends anyone.

silverharp

It looks like he got destroyed in the comments section, i' d imagine he won't be writing many more articles for the guardian. I couldn't get past the homemade clock bit. If my son presented me with a home made pavlova which he had actually bought in the supermarket and threw it into a container he would lose his x box for the week for lying to me......

recedite

I see the aforementioned "clock kid" is now living in Qatar and demanding money from the US taxpayer in compensation for his being offended.

In letters sent to the City of Irving and the Irving Independent School District, lawyers representing the Mohamed family demanded $10 million from the city and $5 million from the school district. The firm has threatened to sue the city if it does not comply within 60 days.

I couldn't possibly comment on this, as I don't want to be sued, or accused of "dickish" behaviour.

PopePalpatine

Sorry to break the anti-Ahmed circlejerk, but it's a bit more than him simply being "offended" at being apprehended.

looksee

People can have political - and other - opinions, fine, I may or may not agree with them but they are entitled to their opinions. However I do not see what it has to do with 'atheism'. Anyone could share any of the opinions quoted regardless of their religion or lack of it.

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

However I do not see what it has to do with 'atheism'. Anyone could share any of the opinions quoted regardless of their religion or lack of it.

but the problem is that dawkins is irretrievably linked to atheism - the general public would think of him as an atheist first, and a scientist second - and he's frequently stuck his foot into his mouth on twitter, and comes across like a right dick in the process.

so it is a problem for the public perception of atheism if the high priest of atheism looks unfeeling. it plays into the hands of people who would like us to believe that atheism means a lack of morals or sensitivity.

Akrasia

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the problem is that dawkins is irretrievably linked to atheism - the general public would think of him as an atheist first, and a scientist second - and he's frequently stuck his foot into his mouth on twitter, and comes across like a right dick in the process.

so it is a problem for the public perception of atheism if the high priest of atheism looks unfeeling. it plays into the hands of people who would like us to believe that atheism means a lack of morals or sensitivity.

Before Dawkins, the 'PR' image of atheism was linked with Stalin, Mao and Hitler.


Dawkins might come across as a bit of an arsehole sometimes, but he's better than hitler. :P

To quote the esteemed philosophers 3LW, 'Haters gonna hate'

The people who don't like atheism will find reasons to not like atheism.

ScumLord

The thing is Dawkins has drawn a line in the sand. Religious people seem to think that atheists should respect their believes but I don't see why. It's a load of nonsense and they're all as nonsensical as each other.

People have the right to believe what they like, I've the right to think they're stupid for believing in stupid things.

Just like someone who likes the x factor isn't going to get much respect from me, I don't have to respect them because they like x factor. I can't stop them watching it, but the fact is I can't make myself respect them.

pH

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists

Mr Sparrow is a deluded liar:

Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas 14-year-old humiliated in school after authorities mistook his homemade clock for a bomb.

At no stage did the authorities mistake his "homemade" clock for a bomb, they knew it wasn't a bomb from the very start - he was in trouble for hoaxing - a very different thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident

They were investigating whether he had any intention of scaring or hoaxing students and teachers, there are other reports kicking around the web that he had a reputation for hoaxing and others that his sister had actually made a bomb threat (not at all sure how true those are). Also given there was nothing "homemade" about the clock, it wasn't a diy clock like many electronics enthusiasts make out of components, it was simply the innards of a commercial clock placed in a pencil case, there was no reason to bring this to school and show anyone - he had done no work.

I think Dawkin's has plenty of reasons for tweeting about this and being skeptical of the media's handling of the whole affair.

magicbastarder

pH wrote: »

there are other reports kicking around the web that he had a reputation for hoaxing and others that his sister had actually made a bomb threat (not at all sure how true those are).

so we can discount them, yeah?

pH wrote: »

Also given there was nothing "homemade" about the clock, it wasn't a diy clock like many electronics enthusiasts make out of components, it was simply the innards of a commercial clock placed in a pencil case, there was no reason to bring this to school and show anyone - he had done no work.

he is (was?) a 14 year old kid. fairly normal behaviour, i'd have thought.

silverharp

Does antiskeptic have form for lobbing hand granade op's over the fence and then fecking off?

pH

magicbastarder wrote: »

so we can discount them, yeah?

he is (was?) a 14 year old kid. fairly normal behaviour, i'd have thought.

You might have been in the habit of impressing your teachers by taking the insides out of a dvd player and bring them to school in a bin-liner, but mine were a little harder to impress - no not normal behaviour at all.

orubiru

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/we-can-save-atheism-from-the-new-atheists

I always found myself getting really worked up and annoyed when religious people trotted out the old "Atheism is a religion" line.

Yet here we apparently have Atheists treating Atheism like it's a religion.

You can't "save" Atheism because you can't control what kind of people decide to not believe in God.

So Richard Dawkins thinks this kid is a hoaxer? Fair enough. That has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Atheism.

I never really understood the worship of guys like Dawkins or PZ Myers as "leaders" of Atheism. It's not a religion or a lifestyle or anything like that. I don't believe in God therefore I am an Atheist.

I don't understand quotes like this "If we’re to save the good name of atheism...". What are they on about with this stuff?

Listen, there could be a loudmouthed skin head standing on the street corner roaring about sending immigrants back to where they came from and declaring that homosexuals should be locked up. "Does he believe in God?" "No." Well then he's an Atheist and there is NOTHING that you can do about that.

Even the idea of ridiculing Religion. People don't necessarily make fun of religious people because they are Atheists. It doesn't make any sense. You might ridicule someone because you are mean spirited or antagonistic. You aren't doing it because you are an Atheist and that's just what Atheists do.

People who think that "Atheist" is an identity are seriously deluding themselves. How do you even hold that view in your mind? How does the "freethinking" Atheist respond when he finds out that the racist, homophobic, right wing, nutjob, doesn't actually believe in God? "Oh, you're not a REAL Atheist"? It's so unbelievably dumb.

It's like finding out that a serial killer is also a vegetarian and thinking "oh my god! He's going to give vegetarians a bad name!" Ridiculous.

The Randy Riverbeast

There's nothing to save. We dont have people attempting to save theism from ISIS. Theism and atheism is just describing a person as either believing in god or not. Any other crap that they tack on to their groups is up to them. Don't even know what the clock thing has to do with atheism, Dawkins can be a bit blunt to say the least but thats up to him.

Curious why the OP decided to just drop a link and run off though.

Shrap

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Curious why the OP decided to just drop a link and run off though.

I'm not. It's antiskeptic. That's what he/she does. Drops in to tell everyone here we're a hive-mind and runs away quickly.

Akrasia

orubiru wrote: »

I always found myself getting really worked up and annoyed when religious people trotted out the old "Atheism is a religion" line.

Yet here we apparently have Atheists treating Atheism like it's a religion.

The OP is an odd kind of an atheist though.

His/her username is descriptive not ironic.

I never really understood the worship of guys like Dawkins or PZ Myers as "leaders" of Atheism. It's not a religion or a lifestyle or anything like that. I don't believe in God therefore I am an Atheist.

Religion vs Science/Reason is an ongoing public debate. Dawkins is so prominent because whenever religious people say anything stupid or objectionable (and that happens an awful lot) there is an atheist reaction, and the most prominent atheists get the most attention in the news and social media.

It doesn't mean he's a leader in the same way that the pope is the leader of the catholic church. Dawkins has his opinions, people agree or disagree based on the merit of those positions. Dawkins follows the lead of other intellectuals just as much as others take cues from him.

Dawkins sees himself as promoting reason and scientific understanding as his primary goal, and he believes that this automatically results in atheism in the majority of people who accept this world view.

I think that most people's distain for Dawkins is because he sometimes cares only about the facts and the truth, and he often discounts the emotional aspects that are a very real part of the human experience. He doesn't care that religion is comforting to people because it isn't true, and he thinks truth matters more than coping. He probably thinks that it's healthier to find a coping mechanism that is based on truth than falsehood, but that's not where we're starting from in this debate.

Dawkins has said plenty of times, that he would never go into a hospice for dying people and start telling everyone that their religion is all wrong that would be inappropriate, but by having the debate in public, he's having this effect anyway. A lot of people don't like Dawkins because of this, that he's forcing people to think about things that they don't want to think about, but the alternative is that his views should be censored, and i think that would be by far the worse of two evils.

The crux of the debate is, Should people be sheltered from the truth if they hold beliefs that are comforting to them, but not true? If Yes, does this mean people who speak the truth should be silenced or forced to hold their debate in private?

Hotblack Desiato

Shrap wrote: »

I'm not. It's antiskeptic. That's what he/she does. Drops in to tell everyone here we're a hive-mind and runs away quickly.

It's cowardly and defeats the point of a discussion forum, which is discussion not a news-dump, many forums including Politics have rules against that.

Akrasia wrote: »

The people who don't like atheism will find reasons to not like atheism.

Usually they find it easier to invent reasons.

looksee

Akrasia wrote: »

Before Dawkins, the 'PR' image of atheism was linked with Stalin, Mao and Hitler.


Dawkins might come across as a bit of an arsehole sometimes, but he's better than hitler. :P

To quote the esteemed philosophers 3LW, 'Haters gonna hate'

The people who don't like atheism will find reasons to not like atheism.

Hitler was not an atheist?

Akrasia

looksee wrote: »

Hitler was not an atheist?

Yeah, I know, but that doesn't stop christian apologists from claiming that he was.

orubiru

Akrasia wrote: »

The crux of the debate is, Should people be sheltered from the truth if they hold beliefs that are comforting to them, but not true? If Yes, does this mean people who speak the truth should be silenced or forced to hold their debate in private?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle in that it's perfectly possible to oppose someone's point of view without being aggressive.

Nobody should be silenced. Especially not within so called "Skeptical Communities".

What seems a bit mad to me is that we have Atheists trying to silence other Atheists for having views on issues that have nothing to do with Atheism.

PZ Myers. Atheism +. This sort of "if you're not with us you're against us" stuff doesn't work with skeptical people because they won't just listen and believe.

I think the trend towards publicly calling out guys like Dawkins and Harris as essentially "Bad Atheists" is worrying. It seems like more of a purge of people who are not seen as "The True Atheists".

It's like if they can get rid of the "Bad Atheists" then they can actually set up a "Religion of Atheism" that has tenets based around race and gender and other identity issues. In a lot of ways they are already going after their own unbelievers and infidels.

What I would say is that I am a Skeptic. As a result of that I have become an Atheist. When someone makes a claim I want to see the evidence and then I will make my decision. Regarding God, I see no evidence so I don't believe and so I am an Atheist by default.

It's the exact same skeptical reasoning that is responsible for my being an Atheist that leads me to question the usual rhetoric regarding "Islamophobia", race and gender etc. I could only say to guys like PZ Myers or Jeff Saprrow that I'm really sorry but I have questions and I think they might be wrong about a few things. All they would have to say to me is basically to shut up or be ostracized.

For example, why are folks like PZ happy to rave about women treated badly "within the Atheist Community" but are dead against having the discussion that women are treated badly "within Islam"? These are folks more interested in purging their own ranks than actually talking about religion.

I suppose we could be heading towards a culture where being a Skeptic is OK so long as you are only skeptical about the right things. You can tell your traditionally Catholic parents that there's no evidence for the existence of God, renounce the church, and get a pat on the back from the same people who will turn around and block you when you tell them you aren't a Feminist. It's absurd.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

Does antiskeptic have form for lobbing hand granade op's over the fence and then fecking off?

Yes, of many years. Though antiskeptic's "hand grenades" tend more in the direction of the skittish fire cracker which tends less to explode in a shower of illuminating sparks, than to fizzle briefly, then go out. The speed of fecking off is usually directly proportional to the pointedness of the questions and the difficulty of answering them.

Though to be fair to antiskeptic, on one occasion (s)he did stay around long enough to confirm that (s)he would have no problems executing people if (s)he felt that his/her deity instructed him/her to do so - so at least the forum has one fixed datum to work with :rolleyes:

Michael OBrien

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sorry to break the anti-Ahmed circlejerk, but it's a bit more than him simply being "offended" at being apprehended.

That report is misleading.
While I am sure the fallout had some negative outcomes for Ahmed, that was not the fault of the police or school, but the family. The father and sister made sure everyone knew what allegedly happened (from THEIR position only as they blocked the police from releasing their side).
The father is to blame for any flak that Ahmed received. The school was not at fault at all, nor the police. The only source of actual criticism I would point to is the policy of zero tolerance is obviously not properly flexible enough to allow for sane discernment of threat level. However a school has to follow the policy and the police must complete their jobs by the book.
Ahmed was not arrested for making a bomb, or that anyone thought he made a bomb. He was suspected of making a hoax bomb, aimed at causing disruption in the school. Ahmed refused to answer why he made it or why he brought it into school. Saying it was a clock is not an answer to those questions.
Both he and his sister had a disciplinary history with the school, fair or unfair I cannot say. But it existed.
There are far more absurd zero policy situations that occured in other schools that show that it was not racial or religiously motivated on the part of the school or police. Kids have got into trouble with police and school over far far far less (nibbling a poptart into a crude gun shape and writing a story about shooting a dinosaur for example).
The kid lied, changed his story, profited from it immensely, has received plenty of support, all the way to the white house, (ridiculously so), took the first opportunity to leave the USA and go to a muslim state instead while claiming America will always be his home in his heart and then sues the school and state for absurd amounts.
His father is behind this, at its core.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Though to be fair to antiskeptic, on one occasion (s)he did stay around long enough to confirm that (s)he would have no problems executing people if (s)he felt that his/her deity instructed him/her to do so - so at least the forum has one fixed datum to work with :rolleyes:

How to differentiate between the voice of god in one's head telling one to kill, and severe mental illness?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How to differentiate between the voice of god in one's head telling one to kill, and severe mental illness?

Any time that or similar questions have been answered, the religious believer usually assures everybody that they "will know in their heart" or some similar formulation. While it's the same reason wheeled out to choose whether some piece of holy text is literally true or metaphorical, I have to say that it's not something that really sets my heart at ease.

@antiskeptic - if you're still following the thread, perhaps you might clarify?

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How to differentiate between the voice of god in one's head telling one to kill, and severe mental illness?

The general rule is if you talk to god you are religious if god talks to you, you are insane.

pH

Sparrow wrote:

These days, Myers (to his credit) devotes considerable time to denouncing Harris. My favourite of his recent interventions includes the line: “Sam Harris [is] full of paranoid, racist sh*t.”

So this is the old Elevatorgate schism brought back up again - Dawkins vs Myers et al!

Anyone who hasn't been following - the whole FTB/Skepchick alliance began eating itself, as all movements driven by ideological purity do, Freethought blogs is a shell of its former self, and Watson is begging for pittances on Patreon.

Our own Michael Nugent did his bit in bringing down PZ and now this toxic movement seems to be on its last legs, perhaps a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for those in Sci-Fi and Gaming communities who continue to fight the good fights against toxic identity politics

robindch

pH wrote: »

So this is the old Elevatorgate schism brought back up again - Dawkins vs Myers et al!

Ah, elevatorgate - them was the days.

A quick (privileged, white, male) poke around suggests as you say - that skepchick's safe space isn't filled these days with much more than tumble-weed and bile.

orubiru

pH wrote: »

So this is the old Elevatorgate schism brought back up again - Dawkins vs Myers et al!

Anyone who hasn't been following - the whole FTB/Skepchick alliance began eating itself, as all movements driven by ideological purity do, Freethought blogs is a shell of its former self, and Watson is begging for pittances on Patreon.

Our own Michael Nugent did his bit in bringing down PZ and now this toxic movement seems to be on its last legs, perhaps a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for those in Sci-Fi and Gaming communities who continue to fight the good fights against toxic identity politics

One of the things that I thought stood out with that whole thing was their spat with Thunderf00t.

It doesn't matter if you are a fan of his videos or not, you have to at least acknowledge that Thunderf00t is a skeptic first and foremost. That's an important point, I think.

He was introduced on FreeThoughtBlogs on 21 June 2012 and within FOUR DAYS they were at each others throats because he wouldn't just agree with their points of view.

They didn't seem to understand that the exact same skepticism, that made bringing in Thundef00t such an attractive prospect for them, was the reason why he was objecting to the "Atheism+" stuff. He was never ever going to just "listen and believe".

It's just a really bizarre way to look at things. OK, you know this guy is a Skeptic but you're going to tell, not ask, him to not be Skeptical on this one idea because you are so invested in that idea. When he reacts skeptically to your idea you are going to try to silence him. That's religious behavior!

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

The general rule is if you talk to god you are religious if god talks to you, you are insane.

True, by definition all religious leaders, past and present, are in trouble then.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How to differentiate between the voice of god in one's head telling one to kill, and severe mental illness?

He would just know. Something to do with his blood pumping organ, if I remember correctly. His blood pumping organ is considerably more advanced than mine. As well as it use as a tool of discernment, it can also be used to see with. Apparently it can also be opened, and this is without an operating theatre, a cardio-thoracic surgeon, a bunch of support staff and a bypass machine. Pretty impressive, I'm sure you will agree.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

The general rule is if you talk to god you are religious if god talks to you, you are insane.

There's another level above that though, where you think you are god.

It appears that Jesus has returned to earth many times, but rarely outside of secure institutions.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It appears that Jesus has returned to earth many times, but rarely outside of secure institutions.

Aww, I've just checked and that Puerto Rican guy, José Luis de Jesús - who set up shop in Florida and appeared on Bill Maher's 'Religulous' where he claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ - died in 2013. He was kinda nice about it, in a crazy, glitzy way. Wikipedia lists the cause of death, possibly unsurprisingly, as cirrhosis of the liver so perhaps he wasn't as good as he should have been at turning wine back into water.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Wikipedia lists the cause of death, possibly unsurprisingly, as cirrhosis of the liver so perhaps he wasn't as good as he should have been at turning wine back into water.

He might have been very good at it, and that was the problem. Maybe he was like the guy in the skittles as and overtime he tried to drink water it automagically became wine. Cirrhosis of the liver would be an inevitability. That said, I am not sure why be didn't just come back to life...

MrP