Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious

[Seb]

The 21st century atheist (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1474570,00.html)

Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion. But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.
The non-religious person today is, therefore, rather like a person who wanders into a shop to buy a breakfast cereal and finds only one variety is for sale. Moreover, this variety isn't very tasty, because the kind of atheism that flourishes today is old and tired.

Today's prominent atheists - people such as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins - hawk around a belief system that reeks of the 19th century, which is not surprising, for that is when it was born. Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate - thus manifesting all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism in a particularly pure form. His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.

Controversial?

[trendkill]

Reading the entire article--he's mostly being sensationalistic, I think. There are a lot more dead religions than dead atheisms. And his "type of atheism" as he explains it leaves a lot to be desired. How can religion satisfy the longing for the transcendent if there is no truth to it? He never even tries to explain this.

[_Naturalist_]

Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.
He blames atheists for not looking at religion as the fiction that it is?

[dettus]

What's with the taboo of criticizing religion?

There's this idea in the US that you don't talk about religion and politics...who benefits from this idea? Not the people...

[Worldtraveller]

Well, I think I understand what he is saying, but where does he get the impression that atheists are intolerant and anti-religious, as opposed to feethinking and wanting to be left alone?

It seems an odd attitude coming from the UK. Or is this becoming more of an issue there, or it is possible reflection on the problems France seems to be having? Most atheists here at IIDB seem to be of the 'live and let live' variety.

The biggest problem many of us have is that the theists aren't happy with the 'let-live' part of that anymore... Much of the so called anti-religious sentiment being seen is purely a reaction to the overwhelming amount of religion being thrown at us by our government lately.

I do 'value' religion in the sense that appreciate the stories and mythology of many old and current world religions. I have read much of Bill Moyers and really like his insight into the links between so many myths from so many different sources.

The irony in this story though, is that this guy is calling for 'tolerance' from atheists. In my experience, it's not the atheists who are intolerant.

Cheers,
Lane

[WNCAtheists]

What the author seems to be attacking, and not realizing it, is not a 'species of atheism'. There's only one species of not believing in gods.

The differences between individuals and various 'cliques' are not their non-belief, but their particular beliefs, philosophies, or other methodologies by which they view life.

What the author is attacking is a particular personality type.
This personality type is not limited to atheists, but unfortunately some of those traits do seem to bolster an individual's proclivity to be outspoken - about anything, not just atheism.

Some of those personality traits:
Self-confident, argumentative, passionate...and there are others that may be in effect as well.

In a minority group such as ours, those with the greatest proclivity to speak out are the ones who will be heard. If those tend to be the MMOH's and Dawkins', then that's what the stereotype of us becomes.

I'm delighted that Dylan Evans speaks out on atheism from a different point of view, but I think he misses the fact that he is driven by the same traits as Dawkins is, only his attack isn't on religion, but instead on anti-religion.

Darrell

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I love how cult members are just free in this society to brainwash everyone's children into their beliefs, but any of us call a fucking spade a spade and we're the ones who are alienating the masses.

There are only two types of "deprogrammable" cult members; those already on their own way to deprogramming who just need a lifeline from one of us and those who can only awaken through a cold, hard slap in the analogical face. All those in between are dead and cannot be saved no matter what anyone says.

It is the dead that always speak.

[faerhyne]

Yet another douche who mistakes atheism for a "belief system" rather than a simple lack of belief in gods.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

It's nice to be nice and it's mean to be mean.

[Y.B]

Richard Dawkins is 'artistically illiterate'? That was news to me, especially knowing his fascination for poetry.

[rationalOne]

That's right, atheists, keep your damn mouths shut. How dare you comment on someone else's belief system?

[Toto]

Here are some more gems of wisdom from this author (http://www.dylan.org.uk): Newton's penis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1433980,00.html) Wilde was right. There is something truly monstrous about scientific curiosity. It is myopic, forgetting the wider context of enquiry that endows facts with meaning. This wider context of enquiry is, ultimately, a philosophical one, in which the burning questions concern the purpose of human existence in general, and the purpose of one's own life in particular.

[Bill B]

Excerpt from Dylan Evans' essay in The Guardian The 21st century atheist (link provided by Seb)--->

"Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false."

But if religion is a false picture of the world, and if the overwhelming majority of religious believers mistake this child-like fantasy for reality--- why is it unsophisticated and immature to call that fundamental fact to their attention? It would seem that there is almost a moral imperative for an atheist to do so.

Is it unsophisticated and immature to take crack cocaine away from a drug addict? Is the only mature attitude to be "sophisticated" and see the addiction as a beautiful "artistic" expression?

If the truth is not cozy, comforting, or in one's self interest, no amount of spin-doctoring, no matter how artistic, is going to change that reality. The only way to move forward in an adult, mature manner is to show some backbone and courage and face this truth squarely and honestly.

[Wyz_sub10]

Today's prominent atheists - people such as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins - hawk around a belief system that reeks of the 19th century

As opposed to theist who hawk around a belif system that reeks of the 2nd century. I guess that's better for some reason. (my guess is that after so many years the odour has diffused to the point where it has become part of the air we breath)

[doubtingt]

That author's "values religion" because he has an incredibly unrealistic and naive notion of what religion is and what it consequences are, or how its ethic of faith is the definitional anti-thesis of reason and therefore in opposition to enlightenment political values grounded in reason.

His notion of religion seems to be that it is nothing more than artistic expression of personal longing, which is just ridiculous and grounded in his own psychological, historical, political, philosophical illiteracy. He ignores every aspect of religion that makes it "religion" and not just a personal art form. That author also buys the false notion that there is some conflict between science and art, a fallacy stemming from his equivocation of art and religion. Very little of religion is art, and while much art is a kind of "transcendant longing", only a fraction of it is religious.

Dawkins is attacked as intolerant and abrasive primarily b/c he is among the few with the knowledge, honesty, and courage required to publically question the "faith is a positive attribute" notion that religion has successfully gotten the public to blindly accept, and to point out the inherent and consequential conflict between faith and science and faith and progressive enlightenment politics.

It is not Dawkins who has aided religion, but the "let's play nice" cowards who legitimize faith culturally, politically, and intellectually to a point where they can mount a national campaign to put creationism in science classes without being ridiculed and laughed off the public stage for being not only absurd in fact, but grotesquely anti-reason and anti-liberty in their values.

[Autonemesis]

Atheism should be more like a set of Lego blocks than a pre-assembled toy.

No, atheism should be more like watching PBS while others sit entranced by "American Idol." Atheism isn't about doing anything. It's about not doing one particular thing.

But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the longing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart.

Why does the depiction of this particular irrational longing get elevated to such high regard, while all the other irrational human longings are simply regarded as irrational?

Is it possible to transcend the longing for transcendant meaning? Yes, it is.

[Autonemesis]

Here are some more gems of wisdom from this author (http://www.dylan.org.uk): Newton's penis (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1433980,00.html)

Even better:
This is why Trivial Pursuit is a great metaphor for science. In that game, players compete by answering questions about all sorts of facts, from facts about sport to facts about geography. Science is similar, except that all the questions are about one particular sort of fact, namely laws of nature, and the various pieces of evidence relevant to these laws. Scientists spend their working lives playing this restricted version of the game, without ever becoming bored or admitting that it is trivial. Each day, they turn over another card with the same undiminished excitement. "Oh my!" one can hear them exclaim as they read out the next question: "How does local accumulation of the plant growth regulator auxin mediate pattern formation in Arabidopsis roots and influence outgrowth of lateral root- and shoot-derived primordia?" And off they go to discover the answer.

Dylan's own website:
My current research goal is to build artificial systems that have emotional capacities.

Can I get a big :rolleyes: from everyone? Thanks.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

There isn't a reason to be "virulent" about anything. Gotta love the demonizing connotations of that word... :rolleyes:

I agree that not believing in religion is no reason to be anti-religious. Only if religion would be found to be dangerous, would anti-religion be justified.

In other words: In the West, Western religion should show itself to be the cause of war, murder, discrimination, irrationality and/or social problems, for an anti-religious stance to be justified.

We all know that religion is benign, never causes war, discrimination, irrationality and/or social problems... Only atheists and homosexuals are the culprits of all our social woes. :D

[Space Chef]

Is it unsophisticated and immature to take crack cocaine away from a drug addict?

Thank you, that's a great metaphor. Thank you! :notworthy










:rolleyes:

[show_no_mercy]

There are brands of atheism? I only know about one - being without god belief. What are these other brands of atheism the author mentions?

[NotQuite]

There are brands of atheism? I only know about one - being without god belief. What are these other brands of atheism the author mentions?

Oh sure, I've got GE's new Atheism Plus package, while my friend swears by Sony's Advanced Anti-Gods System.

You are right when you say that atheism is just plan not believing in any sort of god. Some people want to make atheism in to a belief system so they can easily attack and understand it. Go figure.-NQ-

[show_no_mercy]

Oh sure, I've got GE's new Atheism Plus package, while my friend swears by Sony's Advanced Anti-Gods System.

OMG I feel cheated! When I signed up for the [nonexistent] EAC, I wasn't offered any of those cool atheist packages! :mad:

[MonCapitan2002]

That is because you are only at level one of evil. Once you reach level 4, you can choose which package you want. I wonder how NotQuite got one, though. NotQuite isn't at evil yet.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

:rolling:

[Professor]

Oh sure, I've got GE's new Atheism Plus package, while my friend swears by Sony's Advanced Anti-Gods System.

:rolling: I almost choked over this. :rolling:

[Uncle Ants]

We all know that religion is benign, never causes war, discrimination, irrationality and/or social problems...



Well I think the point is that religion needn't cause any of these things and it seems to me the authors point is that religion basically comes unstuck when its adherents take it literally.

From the article:

The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.


Only atheists and homosexuals are the culprits of all our social woes. :D

Last time I looked it was politicians who were largely responsible for these woes. Some politicians wear dog collars, some of them turbans and some of them a tie and a two piece, some are theists, some atheists and some no doubt are homosexuals but they are politicians all the same.

The key qualifications for starting wars seems to me to be a lack of compassion for your fellow human beings and a borderline psychotic personality - which also happen to be key qualifications for getting ahead in the game of politics.

Religion only comes into it as a particularly hypocritical justification for psychotic political behaviour. Other justifications include appeals to patriotism and a declared love of freedom and democracy (where those making the declaration clearly have anything but a love of these things).

[CaptDave]

But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the longing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart. No scientific theory has ever done justice to this longing, and in this respect religions paint more faithful pictures of the human mind.

I understand where he's coming from here but he's stuck in the false science-religion dichotomy. This leads to the reasoning that since science is useless for deriving "transcendent meaning" and similar things, we are incomplete without religion. Evidently he has never heard of philosophy.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Well I think the point is that religion needn't cause any of these things and it seems to me the authors point is that religion basically comes unstuck when its adherents take it literally.



Last time I looked it was politicians who were largely responsible for these woes. Some politicians wear dog collars, some of them turbans and some of them a tie and a two piece, some are theists, some atheists and some no doubt are homosexuals but they are politicians all the same.

The key qualifications for starting wars seems to me to be a lack of compassion for your fellow human beings and a borderline psychotic personality - which also happen to be key qualifications for getting ahead in the game of politics.

Religion only comes into it as a particularly hypocritical justification for psychotic political behaviour. Other justifications include appeals to patriotism and a declared love of freedom and democracy (where those making the declaration clearly have anything but a love of these things).


Maybe. But still... Western religions (including Islam) have shown to be causes of much suffering. I wonder if anyone of you know if Buddhism has ever caused a war, or that some social strife has come from any one of its tenets... :huh:

[abaddon]

I understand where he's coming from here but he's stuck in the false science-religion dichotomy. This leads to the reasoning that since science is useless for deriving "transcendent meaning" and similar things, we are incomplete without religion. Evidently he has never heard of philosophy.

Out of curiosity, which non-religious philosophies provide a framework for transcendent experiences? I say "experiences" rather than "meaning" because personally I don't see what meaning anything religious has unless it's experienced (and I've had what I tend to think of as "religious" experiences -- though none lead me to theism or any of the traditional, exoteric religious institutions).

I'm not suggesting there are no philosophies that can replace religion. I just want to know the names of some (that deal with "transcendence") so I can look 'em up and examine them. Any that appeal to the "heart" as much as the "head"?

Thanks.

[MollyMac]

I’m surprised at the way this article has been interpreted by many of the posters on this thread. A lot of the responses either miss the point altogether and/or are reading into the piece messages that are simply not there.

I understand exactly where he’s coming from: I have, over the past year, withdrawn from several on-line atheist ‘communities’ (for want of a better word) having been driven nearly demented with frustration at the crabby, closed-minded, mean-spirited intellectual midgets that seem to typify the membership (in most cases a membership based exclusively in the UK, FYI World Traveller). I’m becoming tired of going to real life humanist meetings/conferences because a significant proportion of those who join humanist organisations are of that same species of atheist, apparently unable to evolve beyond the earliest stages of development and still singing the same dreary old song.

I don’t need to hear people banging on endlessly about the evils of religion – I have wasted far too much time arguing for a more nuanced and intelligent approach to religion (and don’t bother read anything I haven’t said into that comment) when what I really want to do is focus on developing a positive alternative.

So more power to people like Dylan Jones for being an atheist with the courage to bring a long overdue debate into the public arena.

[French Prometheus]

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion. But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.
Sure, most of the myriads of religions that have ever existed aren't extinct now. :rolleyes:

What "species" of atheism is extinct BTW?

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I don’t need to hear people banging on endlessly about the evils of religion – I have wasted far too much time arguing for a more nuanced and intelligent approach to religion (and don’t bother read anything I haven’t said into that comment) when what I really want to do is focus on developing a positive alternative.

So more power to people like Dylan Jones for being an atheist with the courage to bring a long overdue debate into the public arena.
My sentiments exactly, thank you for your post.

I like to say that I'm all done talking about God. I'm all done railing against religion. I'm interested in keeping religion away from government, but atheism is not relevant to the issue of church-state separation. "Positive atheism," to me, does not include bashing theists on message boards or passing out pamphlets (http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/pamphlet.htm) such as "The Ridiculous Concept of Soul" or "The Unpleasant Personality of Jesus Christ."

As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[trendkill]

I feel similarly as ELGS and MollyMac in some respects, but I'm at a loss as to how this translates into support for the rather inane article in the OP. I guess you catch more theists with honey, but atheists respond well to being called childish, is that it? :confused:

[Pheno]

It seems an odd attitude coming from the UK.

A couple of points here:

1) He's writing in the Guardian, a newspaper which has gone through the floor in recent years. Other gems recently have been an article expressing regret that George Bush hasn't been assasinated, and a letter sending campaign to residents in Ohio trying to get them to vote for Kerry. All sensationalist bollox.

2) He is a professor at "The University of the West of England". I'd never heard of this one so had to look it up. Its basically one of the "second tier" universities which they have in this country. I had the misfortune to take some evening courses in one of these universities, and their "professors" are frankly a joke!

[Uncle Ants]

Maybe. But still... Western religions (including Islam) have shown to be causes of much suffering.

Well their adherents have anyway.

I wonder if anyone of you know if Buddhism has ever caused a war, or that some social strife has come from any one of its tenets... :huh:

I don't know. Buddhist societies have certainly had wars, but it maybe that Buddhism itself doesn't make for good justifications for war. If that's the case it rather proves the point. Societies suffer these ills anyway, religion rarely the cause but often the excuse ... although I'm currently reading a history of early Byzantium and those guys would kill their own family over the pettiest theological difference - so I may be wrong there)

I have to say I have a deal of sympathy with the author's stance. By rejecting religion out of hand we reject the beauty and truth within religion (and its there if you look) as well the falsehoods - and I say that as an atheist who believes in neither the sky daddy or the supernatural.

[cioxx]

The irony, of course is that Mr. Evans who disapproves of positive atheism, is a positive Bush hater.

Look at the venom directed towards our President on his site ( http://www.dylan.org.uk/usa.html ).

Aside from Mr. Evans' aestetical ineptness, given the presentation on that page, he also cannot accept the godsend Administration of George Bush.

Not subscribing to American foreign policy decisions is no excuse for being virulently anti-Bush or naively pro-reason.

His attacks on Bush Administration are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give Bush opponents a bad name.

[Chuck]

The irony, of course is that Mr. Evans who disapproves of positive atheism, is a positive Bush hater.

Look at the venom directed towards our President on his site ( http://www.dylan.org.uk/usa.html ).

Aside from Mr. Evans' aestetical ineptness, given the presentation on that page, he also cannot accept the godsend Administration of George Bush.

Not subscribing to American foreign policy decisions is no excuse for being virulently anti-Bush or naively pro-reason.

His attacks on Bush Administration are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give Bush opponents a bad name.

:rolling: He's also virulently anti-Microsoft (http://www.dylan.org.uk/nowindows.html).

I'm not sure where I stand on this guy. I'm don't think I'm "anti-religion." I don't see how I could be. I spend so little time thinking about other peoples' religions, my lack of religion, atheism, non-theism etc., that I don't really make many virulent attacks on theism. (Message boards being the occasional exception, but I'll limit my remarks to real life, where things actually matter.) I am by no means some sort of atheist activist.

Even so, I can't help being annoyed by the condescending and prescriptive tone of the article. Also the mediocre and turgid prose (*WARNING: Bad writing ahead*):

But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the long ing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart. No scientific theory has ever done justice to this longing, and in this respect religions paint more faithful pictures of the human mind. My kind of atheism sees religions as presenting potent metaphors and images to represent human aspirations for transcendence.

[Uncle Ants]

Not subscribing to American foreign policy decisions is no excuse for being virulently anti-Bush or naively pro-reason.


Why's that then? The mans an idiot.

[MollyMac]

I feel similarly as ELGS and MollyMac in some respects, but I'm at a loss as to how this translates into support for the rather inane article in the OP. I guess you catch more theists with honey, but atheists respond well to being called childish, is that it? :confused:No that isn’t it. He doesn’t call atheists ‘childish’, though he does say that some are as “unsophisticated and immature as religious believers� – would anyone seriously disagree with this? He also makes a number of other observations which happen to accord with my own experience of a great many atheists I know personally and on-line.

More importantly, he is an atheist who is trying “to challenge other atheists to imagine still more ways of being nonreligious� and he outlines his own “variety� of atheism as a starting point for debate.

I’m sorry I don’t have time at the moment to go into which of his points find resonance with me and which I disagree with – my purpose in posting was to express support for an article which is trying to get us to move on and my dismay at the knee-jerk responses to it.

[MollyMac]

The irony, of course is that Mr. Evans who disapproves of positive atheism, is a positive Bush hater.
Welcome to iidb, cioxx.

I have to take issue with your assertion that Evans "disapproves of positive atheism" but of course that would depend on what you mean by 'positive atheism'. What do you mean by it?

[MrHambre]

It is not Dawkins who has aided religion, but the "let's play nice" cowards who legitimize faith culturally, politically, and intellectually to a point where they can mount a national campaign to put creationism in science classes without being ridiculed and laughed off the public stage for being not only absurd in fact, but grotesquely anti-reason and anti-liberty in their values.I absolutely agree. The reason it's incumbent upon us to insist on a secular society and separation of church and state is that faith is inherently personal and irrational, and belongs nowhere in the public arena.

[dettus]

It is not Dawkins who has aided religion, but the "let's play nice" cowards who legitimize faith culturally, politically, and intellectually to a point where they can mount a national campaign to put creationism in science classes without being ridiculed and laughed off the public stage for being not only absurd in fact, but grotesquely anti-reason and anti-liberty in their values.

YES!!!

Personally I think secularists need to turn up the rhetoric when dealing with the radical religous right. Make it so that the religous moderates would be embarrassed to be associated with the RRR instead of passively enabling them.

[trendkill]

No that isn’t it. He doesn’t call atheists ‘childish’, though he does say that some are as “unsophisticated and immature as religious believers� – would anyone seriously disagree with this?I just don't see why it's okay to call a spade a spade where atheists are concerned, but not where theists are. And the knee-jerk responses show that article is ineffective in trying to get anyone to "move on" from anything.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

YES!!!

Personally I think secularists need to turn up the rhetoric when dealing with the radical religous right. Make it so that the religous moderates would be embarrassed to be associated with the RRR instead of passively enabling them.
Noo! I strongly disagree with this, and I said so in a speech I gave recently:

"Secularism is losing ground. Reason, logic, and rhetoric are not enough to stop the spread of Dominionism. We must exercise power. Speak up in defense of your First Amendment rights, work to secure your secular heritage."

We have to take action: using the media {public speaking, letters-to-the-editor} to educate and inform people about the dangers of Dominionism, for example; using legislation and lawsuits to stop the erosion of the wall of separation between church and state.

Instead of "turning up the rhetoric," we must demand that non-Fundamentalist Christians speak up as well, on behalf of their own religions, to openly distance themselves from the Dominionists and the pursuit of a biblical theocracy. We can't expect religious moderates to help defend religious liberty if all of us church-state separation supporters are busy fighting theism instead of theocracy.

[MollyMac]

I just don't see why it's okay to call a spade a spade where atheists are concerned, but not where theists are. And the knee-jerk responses show that article is ineffective in trying to get anyone to "move on" from anything.
Tendkill, the article doesn't say that it's "not okay" to call a spade a spade! He is simply trying to make a case for a more sophisticated "atheism" (and I interpret his use of the word 'atheism' in this context to mean 'non-religious worldview'). And yes, the article hasn't made much impact on the posters in this thread because most of them apparently identify so strongly with the kind of atheism he is criticising that they are reading things into the article that aren't even there - like you have done in your last two posts.

[Chuck]

He is simply trying to make a case for a more sophisticated "atheism" (and I interpret his use of the word 'atheism' in this context to mean 'non-religious worldview').

A case that he utterly fails to make, with assertions such as "no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins." And of course, atheists can't be vitriolic when talking religion (something about transcendence, whatever that is, goes here). But Richard Dawkins is artistically illiterate.

And yes, the article hasn't made much impact on the posters in this thread because most of them apparently identify so strongly with the kind of atheism he is criticising that they are reading things into the article that aren't even there

I think you're engaging in some unnecessary speculation about why the article hasn't made much impact on the posters in this thread. Personally, I believe this article hasn't made much impact because it's condescending and rather dull.

[cioxx]

Welcome to iidb, cioxx.

I have to take issue with your assertion that Evans "disapproves of positive atheism" but of course that would depend on what you mean by 'positive atheism'. What do you mean by it?
I meant that as dogmatic denial of any supernatural being(s) such a God.

[Janus]

Hey, good thing I don't need an excuse to be anti-religious then.

...

Seriously, it's obvious the author's looking for an excuse to ignore the considerable evil religion has done and continues to do, and hide his nonchalant attitude towards religious brainwashing behind the veil of tolerance.
The rest of his article is just an elaborate rationalization with no basis in reality.

[trendkill]

Tendkill, the article doesn't say that it's "not okay" to call a spade a spade!It's the irony of his whole position. Insulting religionists won't get them to agree with you" is a major point of his. And what does he do to make this point? He insults the very atheists he's trying to persuade.

He is simply trying to make a case for a more sophisticated "atheism" (and I interpret his use of the word 'atheism' in this context to mean 'non-religious worldview').No, he's not "just" doing that. He's being rude and insulting as well.

And yes, the article hasn't made much impact on the posters in this thread because most of them apparently identify so strongly with the kind of atheism he is criticising that they are reading things into the article that aren't even there Which only proves they are his target audience, and shows his failure.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

It's the irony of his whole position. Insulting religionists won't get them to agree with you" is a major point of his. And what does he do to make this point? He insults the very atheists he's trying to persuade.
Trendkill, your point is well-taken, you're right. The author did the same thing he's decrying. HE should learn to catch more flies with honey!

Today I was looking back at an old ad I used to run on my old website back when I was new to online atheist activism in 2002. The old banner said "God is a Lie! Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich." While that sentiment might make many nonbelievers chuckle, it's pretty offensive to believers, and I wouldn't lend my name to something this negative, now. I prefer a more moderate public approach now, and I am glad I left the anti-theism stuff behind me.

Side note, that very name earned my little online group the label "shrill atheists" in some online publication. I found the line on Google, here (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequc301.html):
17/01/03 "Hopping around their web world, one quickly gets the impression that there are two basic types of atheist. The first is the sincere, scholarly atheist, the type who walked away from the Unitarians when they got too evangelical. The Maine Atheists Union typifies this bunch. They want to `think freely' and `live free,' and one of their main precepts reads: `Nobody has all of the answers and nobody ever will. Take the time to get as close as possible to the truth.' The other group is like Orwell's embittered specimen from `Down and Out in Paris and London,' `the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.' These shrill types can be found in places like MSN's God is a Lie! chat community and, of all places, high school. ... What do they all have in common? For one thing, a preoccupation with Christianity. Look around the precincts of atheism and you'll see lots of slogans like `The Religious Right is neither,' but you'll never see `Taoism is for dummies.' Or, for that matter, much anti-Judaism or anti-Islam sentiment ..." (Last J.V., "You Gotta (Dis)Believe," Weekly Standard, 30 July 2002. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/517wiclv.asp)
Perhaps this line was my wake-up call back then? I took it to heart, disbanded my MSN Group, and merged with another online comm, as a result. And now, I'm no longer "preoccupuied with Christianity" or any other religion. And hopefully, I'm no longer "shrill."

[dettus]

Noo! I strongly disagree with this, and I said so in a speech I gave recently:

"Secularism is losing ground. Reason, logic, and rhetoric are not enough to stop the spread of Dominionism. We must exercise power. Speak up in defense of your First Amendment rights, work to secure your secular heritage."

We have to take action: using the media {public speaking, letters-to-the-editor} to educate and inform people about the dangers of Dominionism, for example; using legislation and lawsuits to stop the erosion of the wall of separation between church and state.

Instead of "turning up the rhetoric," we must demand that non-Fundamentalist Christians speak up as well, on behalf of their own religions, to openly distance themselves from the Dominionists and the pursuit of a biblical theocracy. We can't expect religious moderates to help defend religious liberty if all of us church-state separation supporters are busy fighting theism instead of theocracy.

I'm not saying we attack the religous moderates but rather that we point out the dangers and REAL threat from the radical religous right. I said nothing about attacking theism.

I just want the religous moderates to stop being passive!

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Heh, so do I, and so do a lot of people. This is one reason I'm in Americans United for Separation of Church and State: to reach out to the religious and teach them about the dangers of mixing religion and politics.

[Y.B]

I think the lesson here is that it's fundamentalism that we as well as moderate religious people should be against first and foremost - not religion or theism per se.

[MollyMac]

A case that he utterly fails to make,

Speak for yourself. As a strong atheist and someone who has been virulently anti-religious for the best part of half a century, I found a great deal I could empathise and identify with, a lot of food for thought and a confirmation of my feeling that I am now ready to disassociate myself entirely from the small-minded and intellectually bankrupt brand of atheism that I have promulgated for much of my life and which now, frankly, both embarrasses and bores the piss out of me.

with assertions such as "no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins." And of course, atheists can't be vitriolic when talking religion (something about transcendence, whatever that is, goes here). But Richard Dawkins is artistically illiterate.
I don’t know whether his assertions about Dawkins are true but I know that much as those of us in the choir may enjoy the leading tenor’s vitriolic rants against religion they do, as Dylan Evans points out, alienate many of those who are not particularly religious but have no particular problem with most of those who are, not to mention leaving an unforgettably sour aftertaste with those who are religious now but who may not always be. I know this for a fact and personally I’m no longer willing to dismiss such people with the kind of smug triumphalism that typifies Dawkins’ pronouncements on religious faith. So on balance I think Evans’ comment is fair enough.

I think you're engaging in some unnecessary speculation about why the article hasn't made much impact on the posters in this thread. Personally, I believe this article hasn't made much impact because it's condescending and rather dull.
Condescending? How, exactly? If it’s condescending to try to kick off a debate by making perfectly sound and actually rather mild (IMO) criticisms of the public face of atheism and if it’s condescending to make a statement like As a way of kicking off the debate, let me outline my own variety. It would be a travesty if I were to pretend that this is the only worthwhile kind. (my emphasis) then I’ll happily consent to a lot more of condescension of this kind. Sorry but what I’m hearing is: “How condescending of this guy to express an opinion I don’t happen to share.� As for “rather dull�, well it’s interesting that nobody has actually said they found it rather dull - in fact it’s interesting that anyone bothered to comment on it all if they found it dull. But they have and many of the comments are focussed on defending their right to attack religion as if Evans has advocated chemical castration for anyone who does so.

It's the irony of his whole position. Insulting religionists won't get them to agree with you" is a major point of his. And what does he do to make this point? He insults the very atheists he's trying to persuade.
(snip) No, he's not "just" doing that. He's being rude and insulting as well.

Good grief, tendkill, what a sensitive soul you are! You’re “insulted� by…what exactly? I’ve just read the article all the way through again and I am at loss to know what there is to be insulted about unless it’s that comment we discussed earlier about some atheists being as unsophisticated and immature as some religious believers. If that’s what you feel insulted about then I would respectfully suggest that it’s time to toughen up, mate!

Which only proves they are his target audience, and shows his failure.
He may indeed have overestimated his audience. On the other hand I don't think he was necessarily expecting to prise open closed minds overnight.

[MollyMac]

I meant that as dogmatic denial of any supernatural being(s) such a God.
Thanks for your response. I don’t think too many people would be satisfied with this as a definition of positive atheism. What’s positive about it?



I’d quite like to have a serious discussion on the substance of the article but I’m not convinced this thread is the right place for it. Might do better over at Heathen Hangout.

[Chuck]

Condescending? How, exactly? If it’s condescending to try to kick off a debate by making perfectly sound and actually rather mild (IMO) criticisms of the public face of atheism and if it’s condescending to make a statement like (my emphasis) then I’ll happily consent to a lot more of condescension of this kind. Sorry but what I’m hearing is: “How condescending of this guy to express an opinion I don’t happen to share.�
Wow, talk about reading things that aren't there. I think I share at least some of his opinions - at least what I can extract from this article. However, I certainly object to how he presented it, and I think his presentation undermines his point. I posted this on another board, and I think it's relevant here:
I stand by my criticism that the author's point is weakened by his failure to engage his target audience (i.e. "Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world") and instead choosing to talk down to them, not two sentences later equating them "children." The same is true for those nontheists who want to engage theists and attempt to "win them over." For myself, I am not particularly interested in such pursuits, but I'm confident that attacking those one is trying to persuade as "unsophisticated and immature" "children" won't be terribly successful. The rather bizarre art metaphor notwithstanding, this alone undermines his efficacy.

Indeed, I think the author may well do a disservice to atheism by his own standard by attacking sincere theism in equal terms. "Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false." I think he was attempting to walk the line and 'soften' atheism (or at least make the public face of it less...ranting) with extended metaphor - likening it to a child's toy didn't help much either, btw. But, IMHO, he failed.

A civil dialogue about atheism and theism is a wonderful idea, but it shall have to find a better representative.

As for “rather dull�, well it’s interesting that nobody has actually said they found it rather dull
Actually, I did.
- in fact it’s interesting that anyone bothered to comment on it all if they found it dull.
I was at first amused by the poor writing.
But they have and many of the comments are focussed on defending their right to attack religion as if Evans has advocated chemical castration for anyone who does so.
Another strange similie.

[Vorkosigan]

There's a constant flow of this self-validating crap, both from within IIDB and without. I thought I'd offer my own critique so we can see what is actually going on here.

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion. But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.

False distinction.Some "religions" are atheistic.

The non-religious person today is, therefore, rather like a person who wanders into a shop to buy a breakfast cereal and finds only one variety is for sale. Moreover, this variety isn't very tasty, because the kind of atheism that flourishes today is old and tired.

Cheap insult. Lumps all atheists into "the kind of atheism that flourishes today". Calls it "old and tired." Clearly knows nothing about it as subsequent discussion shows.

Today's prominent atheists - people such as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins - hawk around a belief system that reeks of the 19th century, which is not surprising, for that is when it was born. Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate - thus manifesting all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism in a particularly pure form.

The author makes several egregious errors. Dawkins is a particular kind of atheist, a metaphysical naturalist. "Old atheism" is a strawman the author has constructed out of his own ignorance. Anyone who has experienced the pleasure of Dawkin's crisp prose and clear thought knows how stupid the last accusation is.

His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name. As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.

That might well be true. It would require documentation, however. As it stands it is an unsupported assertion -- like all the others.

Isn't it about time that atheists tried to imagine what some other forms of atheism might look like? Not in the hope of replacing one orthodoxy with another, but simply in order to challenge other atheists to imagine still more ways of being nonreligious - to encourage them to construct their own forms of atheism, rather than buying a ready-made version off the shelf.

Next, the author accuses atheists of being herd animals who adhere to orthodoxy. After telling us it is important to make contact with people without insulting them (!). How any thinking person could defend this author is a mystery.

Atheism should be more like a set of Lego blocks than a pre-assembled toy. The challenge and the opportunity that it offers is that of constructing one's own personal philosophy of life, a philosophy that is not put together according to any set of instructions handed down from on high.

No shit, Sherlock. That's why we're atheists, and each one unique and different. Or didn't you notice? It looks like our trusty author has never spent any time on an atheist group to see how we function.

As a way of kicking off the debate, let me outline my own variety. It would be a travesty if I were to pretend that this is the only worthwhile kind. But I do think it is more appropriate for the 21st century. My kind of atheism takes issue with the old atheism on all three of its main tenets: it values religion; treats science as simply a means to an end; and finds the meaning of life in art.

Bully for you! Do you know any atheist who doesn't treat science as a means to an end? Guess what, there is no logical contradiction between being "passionately pro-science" and "treating science as a means to an end." Democracy is a means to an end of creating a loving and progressive human society, but I notice a lot of us are quite passionate about it. But I guess denigrating others means never having to think about what we say, eh?

When I say that I value religion, I don't mean that I see any truth in the stories about gods, devils, souls and saviours. But I do think there is one respect in which religion is more truthful than science - in its depiction of the long ing for transcendent meaning that lies in man's heart. No scientific theory has ever done justice to this longing, and in this respect religions paint more faithful pictures of the human mind.

Horseshit. Religion is one way of tapping into this "longing," which we now know is an outgrowth of the teleological biases in human cognition. Any scientist who enjoys her work could give our friend here quite a lecture on its intellectual and emotional fulfillment. This man is merely a maundering fool.

My kind of atheism sees religions as presenting potent metaphors and images to represent human aspirations for transcendence. It is only when these metaphors are understood as such, and not mistaken for literal statements, that the true value of religion is revealed.

Yes, it's value lies in organizing social resources to funnel them upward to those who have managed to become privileged interpreters of the religion's redistribution functions and enforcement functions. In other words, once you strip away the transcendence, you should be able to see most religions for what they are: systems of authority, power, and control.

Here is a parable to explain what I mean: once upon a time, a talented artist painted a picture of a beautiful landscape on the wall of his house. People came from all around to see the picture. It was so beautiful that they would spend whole days staring at it.

Led on by wishful thinking, some people even began to forget that they were looking at a painting, and came to believe that the wall was a window. So the artist removed one of the bricks in the wall, allowing the illusory nature of the painting to become clear.

Some of those who had mistaken the painting for reality were upset to have their illusion shattered. But the wise ones thanked the artist profusely. "By revealing the fictitious nature of this landscape," they said, "you have allowed us to appreciate the beauty of your art."

Great parable. Only the author of the parable forgot to add that in the real world, the religious artist claims his work IS reality, and gets upset when a clear-eyed skeptic punches a hole through the wall (and usually attempts to suppress or destroy him, while continuously reassuring the viewers that his art is reality). The parable illustrates nothing about how religion-promulgators behave in the real world. It is simply a clever fantasy designed to validate the author's presumed moral superiority.

I think the best way to think about religion is to see it like the painting in this parable. In other words, religions are beautiful things, but their beauty can only be truly appreciated when they are seen as human creations - as works of art.

The are not works of art, but generally speaking, hideously ugly systems of power and control. Most people manage to ameliorate their negative aspects, however, because they are human beings who resist the impositions of others.

Atheists who attack religions for painting a false picture of the world are as unsophisticated and immature as religious believers, who mistake the picture for reality. The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.

Funny, because that's what we do. We reject the picture because we know the art is only paper over an urgent and serious need for power and control. It is this lust for dominance that colors so many religions, especially the Abrahamic ones, that the author will not face. Because if he did, he would discover that Dawkins' anger has a rational basis, and thus invalidate the premise of his piece. Like religion, the author of this piece is simply papering over his own ignorance, feelings of superiority, and desperate need for the affirmation of others with beautiful, condescending prose.

This article is simply another in a style of writing that we are seeing more and more: using fellow atheists as whipping boys to vindicate our own moral superiority. There's a wonderful parable in Dune that Paul tells at the dinner table early in the book, about how a drowning fisherman killed his pal by standing on his shoulders, leaving the other to drown. That is what our friend is doing to Dawkins here. One can take issue with Dawkins' tactics, but to deny the passion and anger that fuels them is to deny that atheism has any valid basis.

Vorkosigan

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I’d quite like to have a serious discussion on the substance of the article but I’m not convinced this thread is the right place for it. Might do better over at Heathen Hangout.
This thread is certainly appropriate for this discussion, I hope you consider continuing your discussion here on this public board, where many unregistered readers are paying attention, rather than on a private board closed to non-members.

[cioxx]

Thanks for your response. I don’t think too many people would be satisfied with this as a definition of positive atheism. What’s positive about it?
I understand there is a certain ambiguity attached to the hypernym 'positive'. The prevalence of common usage usually carries characteristics asserting a benefit, or any variation dealing with virtual change, drowning its immediate definition which signifies certainty.

Try to think of it as certain and strong atheism.

For me, the entire spectrum, which seems to be saturated with useless, (non)belief-specific definitional terms like agnosticism, nihilism and deism boils down to 2 choices - Theism and Atheism (which in turn branches into 2 categories - Stong and Weak, or Positive and Negative). Statements from these three are as follow:

Theist: There is a God.
Positive Atheist: There is enough evidence to suggest that there is no God.
Negative Atheist: There isn't enough evidence to believe in the existence of God.

I hope this answers your question. Of course, different people have different definitions of these modifiers, and there are some who may disagree on terminology. But that's how I distinguish it.

[trendkill]

Good grief, tendkill, what a sensitive soul you are! You’re “insulted� by…what exactly?Me? Nothing. Those who identify closely with people like Dawkins, on the other hand, got an earful.

I’ve just read the article all the way through again and I am at loss to know what there is to be insulted about unless it’s that comment we discussed earlier about some atheists being as unsophisticated and immature as some religious believers.Not just any atheists, though--his target audience. He insulted the very people his rant was ostensibly meant to persuade. And what he was trying to persuade them of was that vitriol is not a good method of persuasion. Perhaps, as ELGS does, you cans see the irony, not to mention the foolishness, of this approach.

He may indeed have overestimated his audience.More likely he was being self-indulgent.

[Gurdur]

I’d quite like to have a serious discussion on the substance of the article but I’m not convinced this thread is the right place for it. Might do better over at Heathen Hangout
This thread is certainly appropriate for this discussion, I hope you consider continuing your discussion here on this public board, where many unregistered readers are paying attention, rather than on a private board closed to non-members.
The vitriolic and emotional attacks on Dylan Evans predominating in this thread would seem to argue otherwise.
BTW, to clear up a few misconceptions and unsupported assertions scattered throughout the thread, posters should realise that Dylan Evans has quite a good knowledge of atheism, has been involved in the European sceptics congress, and has quite an impressive scientific CV and list of scientific publications --- and his CV and list of scientific publications is quite easy to see on his website, which is linked to in the articles under "discussion" here. Many should seek to emulate him, rather than emoting at him.

The vitriol and sheer misunderstanding has not only been directed at Dylan Evans, but also here in this thread against MollyMac, who has very long been active in atheist movements, including working for a secular humanist foundation. MollyMac's experience is not surpassed by many at all in thsi thread, and much of the reaction to her comments is far from constructive.

In any case, the predominant flow on this thread is not conducive to rational discussion of this -- and if the Heathen Hangout (http://www.heathenhangout.com/) doesn't attract people, owing to being a private forum, then there's always discussion on The Freethought Forum in public as well (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=65999#post65999).

[Vorkosigan]

The vitriolic and emotional attacks on Dylan Evans predominating in this thread would seem to argue otherwise.

According to Evans,

...atheists buy ideas ready-made off the shelf
...atheists adopt a "tired" atheism
...accuses a leading public atheist of being artistically illiterate
...accuses atheists of being herd animals who adhere to an orthodoxy
...accuses atheists of buying a pre-assembled toy

The author then raises a few logically crippled strawmen, including arguing that there is a contradiction between being pro-science and treating science as a means to an end, and then ends with a hopeless parable that does not describe religion in the real world.

And its his opponents who are emotive and vitriolic! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

BTW, to clear up a few misconceptions and unsupported assertions scattered throughout the thread, posters should realise that Dylan Evans has quite a good knowledge of atheism,

...clearly NOT as ten minutes at Infidels would let anyone know.

has been involved in the European sceptics congress, and has quite an impressive scientific CV and list of scientific publications --- and his CV and list of scientific publications is quite easy to see on his website, which is linked to in the articles under "discussion" here. Many should seek to emulate him, rather than emoting at him.

No, thanks. I'd rather not divide atheists into little groups by deciding which ones are right and which ones aren't. That's what Christians do, Gurdur.

The vitriol and sheer misunderstanding has not only been directed at Dylan Evans, but also here in this thread against MollyMac, who has very long been active in atheist movements, including working for a secular humanist foundation. MollyMac's experience is not surpassed by many at all in thsi thread, and much of the reaction to her comments is far from constructive.

I think MollyMac is great and admire her very much. I also think there's far too much my-atheism-is-superior-to-yours going on here. Such discussions would be better if they stopped being about whose atheism is the "right" or the "rational" kind or the "mature" kind and focused on what tactics and stances we ought to take in opposition to the religious right onslaught.

In any case, the predominant flow on this thread is not conducive to rational discussion of this -- and if the Heathen Hangout (http://www.heathenhangout.com/) doesn't attract people, owing to being a private forum, then there's always discussion on The Freethought Forum in public as well (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=65999#post65999).

You are right about that. It's impossible to have "rational" discussion about a poorly-constructed article that doesn't understand religion and thinks atheists are herd animals.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

The fact is that atheism needs Dawkins and we really ought to stop hacking on him and focus on the Dark Side. Let the bad guys waste their energy crapping on him. Dawkins has two useful functions. First, he speaks truth, and that's always good. And second, by being extreme, he creates space for moderates like MollyMac and ELGS to build bridges to moderates as fellow moderates. If not for Dawkins, ELGS and Molly and that yammerhead Evans would be getting the brunt of the attacks for being radicals. Dawkins takes shit so the Cause can move forward. He doesn't need more shit, and especially not from his own side, from people who -- if they really knew atheism -- would leave him alone. Instead, the Reich has a nicely written quotable article that it can add to its inventory. Brilliant work, Evans! I hope he goes back to eating the buffet at skeptical Congresses, and quits doing the Reich's work for it.

Do you know how many times I've sat in on meetings with the Taiwan democracy movement or with leftists in the states and listened to them hack on each other? Leftists constantly mourn how the Left attacks the Left. We can learn from their errors. No atheist should ever publicly criticize another's atheism. That's suicide. If Evans doesn't like Dawkins he can bitch about him on the Internet. But to publish cannon fodder in The Guardian is the height of stupidity and betrayal.

So let Dawkins ALONE and focus on the real problem, Reich Christianity. Dawkins is your ally. And unlike Evans, I value the contributions of Dawkins and MollyMac and ELGS and even Evans himself, when he's not writing myopic pieces in The Guardian to make himself feel superior.

Vorkosigan

[Uncle Ants]

So let Dawkins ALONE and focus on the real problem, Reich Christianity. Dawkins is your ally. And unlike Evans, I value the contributions of Dawkins and MollyMac and ELGS and even Evans himself, when he's not writing myopic pieces in The Guardian to make himself feel superior.

Vorkosigan

Blimey. I think you need a lie down. And all I thought Evans was really suggesting was that there ought to be more to atheism than the "There is no God, Religion is All Shit" line. A lot of people on this forum appear to have very thin skins.

I quite admire Dawkins, but it is undeniably true that the almost shrill nature of his opposition to all things religious really does put people off considering atheism (and after all it must be a considered position, I think we'll all agree, otherwise its just a case of don't know don't care). Not sure why he lumped Miller in the same boat though.

[Vorkosigan]

Blimey. I think you need a lie down. And all I thought Evans was really suggesting was that there ought to be more to atheism than the "There is no God, Religion is All Shit" line. A lot of people on this forum appear to have very thin skins.

There IS more to atheism than that. Why do you insist on characterizing it that way?

[Uncle Ants]

There IS more to atheism than that. Why do you insist on characterizing it that way?

I don't, but it is definitely the way Dawkins comes across to a lot of people.

[Vorkosigan]

I don't, but it is definitely the way Dawkins comes across to a lot of people.

I agree. And just a moment ago, I pointed out why that is a useful and important trait. Read how I analyzed Dawkins' function in the context of atheism activism as a whole. If the Reich is rolled back, it won't be because we see Christianity as a work of art. Rather, it will be because we can clearly focus on its authoritarianism and urgent need for dominion.

This points up yet another problem with Evans' misguided article. Not only does it divide atheists into the beetle-browed and enlightened variety, it also falls for one of the Religious Right's favorite dodges, advancing Christianity under the cover of "religion." Religions are not equal. I'll be damned if I see that anti-human, world-negating, torture worship authoritarianism as a 'work of art'. Articles like Evans' make it easy to smear those of us who don't give a shit about other religions but do know who the Enemy is.

That's, ummm, another reason not to indulge in myopic self-validation.

Vorkosigan

[Uncle Ants]

I agree. And just a moment ago, I pointed out why that is a useful and important trait. Read how I analyzed Dawkins' function in the context of atheism activism as a whole. If the Reich is rolled back, it won't be because we see Christianity as a work of art. Rather, it will be because we can clearly focus on its authoritarianism and urgent need for dominion.

Whether this is a good thing depends on whether you think the extreme view takes the heat off of those who don't take that stance ... or whether the moderate of us take some of Dawkins heat instead. (EDIT: Actually maybe I'm talking guff - no one in the UK catches flak for declaring themselves atheist, most people would wonder why you were getting so excited about the non existence of God, to most people its a matter of supreme indifference)

This points up yet another problem with Evans' misguided article. Not only does it divide atheists into the beetle-browed and enlightened variety, it also falls for one of the Religious Right's favorite dodges, advancing Christianity under the cover of "religion." Religions are not equal. I'll be damned if I see that anti-human, world-negating, torture worship authoritarianism as a 'work of art'. Articles like Evans' make it easy to smear those of us who don't give a shit about other religions but do know who the Enemy is.

If you see religion as the Enemy (capital E noted), then I'd suggest you have no hope in winning your battle. Personally I don't think you are ever likely to persuade any of the faithful that they are misguided. They need to come to that conclusion themselves. I'd also point out that the Religious Right you cite are no more Christian's than I am. If the people who so loudly protest their Christianity actually were Christian, the world might be a better place than it is.

[Vorkosigan]

Whether this is a good thing depends on whether you think the extreme view takes the heat off of those who don't take that stance ... or whether the moderate of us take some of Dawkins heat instead. (EDIT: Actually maybe I'm talking guff - no one in the UK catches flak for declaring themselves atheist, most people would wonder why you were getting so excited about the non existence of God, to most people its a matter of supreme indifference)

Yes, but many people here are American, where we have a very serious problem with a rapidly ascending Christian facist movement. I don't think a lot of UKians grasp this, or that they are next on the list.

If you see religion as the Enemy (capital E noted), then I'd suggest you have no hope in winning your battle.

It's good, then, that I don't think religion is the enemy, eh? Did you not read my post? Or read it through the prism of your own judgments and prejudices?

Personally I don't think you are ever likely to persuade any of the faithful that they are misguided.

LOL. I know from experience that you are wrong. I behave one way here, another way elsewhere. Postures need to be adapted to audiences.

They need to come to that conclusion themselves. I'd also point out that the Religious Right you cite are no more Christian's than I am. If the people who so loudly protest their Christianity actually were Christian, the world might be a better place than it is.

Probably not, since nobody knows what "Christian" is. Given that the last 2,000 years of Christianity have been characterized by authoritarianism, and progressive Christianity is an aberration of the last two hundred secularized years, I would venture to suggest that yes, the facist Christians might well be the 'real" Christians, in the sense that they are Christians as Christianity was originally intended to produce.

Vorkosigan

[dettus]

Vork, please keep it up, I like your style.

When I read how atheists need to play nice, even when the RRR (radical religious right) are playing hardball, I want to bang my head against the wall. IMO the reason why the RRR has so much power is because too many atheists and secularists wanted to be nice and rightfully so want a live and let live attitude. BUt the sad truth for me is that the RRR doesn't want to live and let live. Push me and I will resist.

Ever watch FOX or MSNBC news? WHen the night is winding down, the kids are in bed, me and my wife want to watch TV. But there has been a new ritual. I say, "let's see how the christians are being pursecuted today." And I turn on MSNBC news. Quite literally at about 10:15 every night Joe Scarbarogh is regurgitating the neocon talking points about how the liberals have no faith, how they are immoral, godless elitists, etc. The language they use is purposely meant to pit less aggressive secularists against the more 'extreme' ones.

I dunno, it seems like when atheists bash other atheists, you are falling right into the neocon plan. Like a divide and conquer.

SOrry my posts suck, but I have a lot of RL here at home during the day...dad to 3 little ones.

edited to add MSNBC

[Uncle Ants]

Yes, but many people here are American, where we have a very serious problem with a rapidly ascending Christian facist movement. I don't think a lot of UKians grasp this, or that they are next on the list.

Well, that's why I put in my edit. I honestly don't think it will happen here. The churches had a go at the beginning of the election to big up some of the "moral" issues and it went down like a wet fart. Religious extremism hasn't rocked anyones boat here for quite a long time.

One thing I would say is that I'm sure that there are a large number of quite reasonable and liberal Christians in your neck of the woods who maybe aren't saying anything because they are as scared of the RR as everyone else. Seems to me the way to halt the Christian Right is to help persuade the Christians who aren't "Right", that their liberties are as much in danger as everyone elses and that to be Christian doesn't mean to be rabidly right wing and theocratic, rather than trying to persuade them that there ain't no Sky Daddy.

Get these people to question what they are being told they should think to be good Christians rather than question their Christianity. Maybe they'll do that as well one day, in which case good on em, they've really started to think critically.

It's good, then, that I don't think religion is the enemy, eh? Did you not read my post? Or read it through the prism of your own judgments and prejudices?

Ok. Maybe I misread it ...

it also falls for one of the Religious Right's favorite dodges, advancing Christianity under the cover of "religion." Religions are not equal. I'll be damned if I see that anti-human, world-negating, torture worship authoritarianism as a 'work of art'.

I've reread it and you appear to be saying that religion isn't the Enemy per se ... Christianity is. Is that correct? Frankly I think you are wrong. If zoroastrianism were the accepted religion these people would undoubtedly be zoroastrians ... and bad ones at that.

LOL. I know from experience that you are wrong. I behave one way here, another way elsewhere. Postures need to be adapted to audiences.

Well I guess we'll have to differ on this one. Personally I find proseletising from whatever position you are coming somewhat arrogant and would question just how secure in their own beliefs the proseletiser is themself.

Probably not, since nobody knows what "Christian" is. Given that the last 2,000 years of Christianity have been characterized by authoritarianism, and progressive Christianity is an aberration of the last two hundred secularized years, I would venture to suggest that yes, the facist Christians might well be the 'real" Christians, in the sense that they are Christians as Christianity was originally intended to produce.


And the two thousand years before that were also characterised by authoritarianism. It was ever so.

Even a cursory reading of the Gospels would suggest that the Religous Right, GW Bush, his neocon backers and the rest of that intolerant crew do not wholly subscribe to the teachings therein. I'd suggest that they are therefore not Christians, no matter how much they might protest the opposite. I could shout to the world that I'm purple with pink spots, but I'm not.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Seems to me the way to halt the Christian Right is to help persuade the Christians who aren't "Right", that their liberties are as much in danger as everyone elses and that to be Christian doesn't mean to be rabidly right wing and theocratic, rather than trying to persuade them that there ain't no Sky Daddy.
I agree with you, and in my own activism I learned to go from fighting theism to simply fighting theocracy.

[dettus]

Uncle, all that sounds great but HOW do you get the religious moderates to see and act against the threat from the RRR?

I say (and I'm not saying everyone should feel as I do) that we attack the RRR for the radicals that they are. We don't need to attack the religion because that would put moderates off. But we can attack RRR's false claims and misrepresentations. I think that if we attack the RRR in the right way the religous moderates will catch on.

I don't think we should be allowing the RRR to spew their crap in the name of tolerance. All ideas are not equal.

[Uncle Ants]

Uncle, all that sounds great but HOW do you get the religious moderates to see and act against the threat from the RRR?

I say (and I'm not saying everyone should feel as I do) that we attack the RRR for the radicals that they are. We don't need to attack the religion because that would put moderates off. But we can attack RRR's false claims and misrepresentations. I think that if we attack the RRR in the right way the religous moderates will catch on.

I don't think we should be allowing the RRR to spew their crap in the name of tolerance. All ideas are not equal.

I don't know exactly and as I'm from the UK, where the rise of the Christian Right doesn't appear to be an issue, I have to be a little careful about what I say, but it seems plain to me that if you want to stop some people from pushing an intolerant and authoritarian agenda in the name of Christianity then the best people to denounce that effectively are other Christians.

Of course atheists ought to speak out against this kind of crap, but to attack all Christians on the assumption that they are all Right wing nuts seems likely to be less than effective. Quote some scripture back at the bastards and suggest they'd better start learning to thread themselves through the eye of a needle, why not - of course that would come better from a Christian mouth than an atheist one.

Anyways. I thought Dylan's article was about Atheist lifestyle rather than how to defeat the KKKristyuns. He put forward his view (and said up front he wasn't saying this was the way to be) in order to start a debate, and hats off to him in my view. Of course if you view the world as some sort of Atheist versus Christianity battle, then mebbe it wouldn't go down so well ... or so it would seem.

[WNCAtheists]

...HOW do you get the religious moderates to see and act against the threat from the RRR?

I've already posted this before (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2351734#post2351734)

Darrell

[epepke]

The only mature attitude to religion is to see it for what it is - a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality, and which only a child would reject for being false.

This statement effectively calls the vast majority of religionists "children" and claims they are immature. So who's really the one being vitriolic here?

[Vorkosigan]

This statement effectively calls the vast majority of religionists "children" and claims they are immature. So who's really the one being vitriolic here?

Actually, he manages to pin everyone -- children who believe, and children who reject it because it is false. Do you think Evans thinks Aum Shinrikyo is a work of art? How about Scientology? Kali thuggees?

Like I said, a poisonous, myopic article that is divisive, and not well thought out.

Well I guess we'll have to differ on this one. Personally I find proseletising from whatever position you are coming somewhat arrogant and would question just how secure in their own beliefs the proseletiser is themself.

Of course, personal attacks -- which I have refrained from -- I would certainly never question your particular atheism -- are OK if they come from people advocating that we ... not engage in personal attacks. How's that again? Speaking of arrogance.....it seems I'm not the one in this conversation with it.


Even a cursory reading of the Gospels would suggest that the Religous Right, GW Bush, his neocon backers and the rest of that intolerant crew do not wholly subscribe to the teachings therein. I'd suggest that they are therefore not Christians, no matter how much they might protest the opposite. I could shout to the world that I'm purple with pink spots, but I'm not.

I'm delighted that you think that GW and Co are not Christians, but I don't play the True Atheist game, and I don't play the True Christian game either. There's quite a bit in the Gospels and epistles that GW and Co DO agree with, and Christianity is a hell of a lot more than what is written in the NT.

Of course atheists ought to speak out against this kind of crap, but to attack all Christians on the assumption that they are all Right wing nuts seems likely to be less than effective.

Iit's good, then, that none of us are advocating that, eh?

Quote some scripture back at the bastards and suggest they'd better start learning to thread themselves through the eye of a needle, why not - of course that would come better from a Christian mouth than an atheist one.

Fuckin' right. That's why I am constantly posting polite, honest, and loving commentaries on liberal Christian sites, and post on several liberal Christian forums, etc, under totally different identities and in several different modes, always searching for the right voice and the right words.

First you attack me for being insecure, and now you want to claim I'm stupid to boot. If this is humilty and refraining from personal attacks, I'd sure hate to be the object of an insult from you.

Vorkosigan

[Uncle Ants]

First you attack me for being insecure, and now you want to claim I'm stupid to boot. If this is humilty and refraining from personal attacks, I'd sure hate to be the object of an insult from you.



Er no.

1. I didn't attack you for being insecure - I only said I don't think proseletising is a good thing (that was an impersonal "you" and I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.

2. I haven't claimed you are stupid.

[ComestibleVenom]

Attacking religion is like stalking deer. A very effective way is to pretend to be a deer.

The problem is, Dylan Evans let himself forget that he is not a deer. This sort of self-deception is a vicious trick, in many ways far more disrespectful to religious people than anything Richard Dawkins has said.

I think we can usurp the power and truths of the religions without giving even lip service to their religious delusions.

At the same time, with Dawkins, I suspect it is not always and not all for the best to seduce sheep from the flock. Sometimes you have to be honest about where you are going. Sometimes the sheep are smart enough to go there ahead of you, once the way has been pointed out.

[ComestibleVenom]

It is not Dawkins who has aided religion, but the "let's play nice" cowards who legitimize faith...

But faith is powerful in that it can be legitimized by the appearance of persecution. As I indicated before, the dirtiest way to play is nicely.

[R.M.S.]

Can I get a big :rolleyes: from everyone? Thanks.I should note that I've read Dylan's book 'Emotion', and it's really not all that bad albeit being a little simple. So he's not an idiot along the whole spectrum, just some of his views are a bit weird. :)

[Kryten]

I’m surprised at the way this article has been interpreted by many of the posters on this thread. A lot of the responses either miss the point altogether and/or are reading into the piece messages that are simply not there.

I understand exactly where he’s coming from: I have, over the past year, withdrawn from several on-line atheist ‘communities’ (for want of a better word) having been driven nearly demented with frustration at the crabby, closed-minded, mean-spirited intellectual midgets that seem to typify the membership (in most cases a membership based exclusively in the UK, FYI World Traveller). I’m becoming tired of going to real life humanist meetings/conferences because a significant proportion of those who join humanist organisations are of that same species of atheist, apparently unable to evolve beyond the earliest stages of development and still singing the same dreary old song.

I don’t need to hear people banging on endlessly about the evils of religion – I have wasted far too much time arguing for a more nuanced and intelligent approach to religion (and don’t bother read anything I haven’t said into that comment) when what I really want to do is focus on developing a positive alternative.

So more power to people like Dylan Jones for being an atheist with the courage to bring a long overdue debate into the public arena.


At first when I read his article, I became rather frustrated. Then I re-read it. On the second read it became rather obvious to me that this author is a dullard with no real appreciation for history. And a lack of knowledge thereof.
After I realised the man was a fool, I felt much better.
I fully understand the attitude of many atheists who, as you said, had a knee jerk reaction. Religion has after all been responsible for atheists being slaughtered for centuries. For women innocent of any crime being killed. For females raped, and then based on a religious law the rapist goes free and the woman condemned. This happened recently in Pakistan. Whether or not an atheist might find an attitude offensive, the attitude is based in thousands of years of history.
People speak of the beauty of religion. But I could not see any beauty at the site of a woman under the Taliban who had been sentenced to clubbing, and then the guard simply chose to shoot her instead. in the head. Or the images of public beheading based in religious law. Or the Indian Hindus being killed by baptist missionaries in India.
I try to find beauty in it, but it escapes me.

[MollyMac]

At first when I read his article, I became rather frustrated. Then I re-read it. On the second read it became rather obvious to me that this author is a dullard with no real appreciation for history. And a lack of knowledge thereof.

Well for those of us to whom it is not “rather obvious�, would you care to explain how you got this impression?

After I realised the man was a fool, I felt much better.

I got a similar feeling after reading that comment of yours.

I fully understand the attitude of many atheists who, as you said, had a knee jerk reaction. Religion has after all been responsible for atheists being slaughtered for centuries.

Newsflash: Religion is not an independent thinking, breathing entity. It doesn’t have a life of its own and it’s not capable of being “responsible� for anything.

This is how it goes: People make religion up. People believe in religion. People interpret religion in all sorts of different ways to suit themselves. People do great things in the name of religion. People do terrible things in the name of religion. Evans article, however, was not concerned with what people do in the name of religion but with what religion - as a human invention - tells us about humankind. The article doesn’t defend religious people - on the contrary, he says in no uncertain terms that those who mistake religion, which is a human construct, for reality are ‘unsophisticated and immature’. That’s a fairly sweeping condemnation of all religious believers.

Your catalogue of atrocities carried out by religious believer has no more bearing on the topic than a list of charitable works carried out by good, kind Christians.

[doubtingt]

Newsflash: Religion is not an independent thinking, breathing entity. It doesn’t have a life of its own and it’s not capable of being “responsible� for anything.

This is how it goes: People make religion up. People believe in religion. People interpret religion in all sorts of different ways to suit themselves. People do great things in the name of religion. People do terrible things in the name of religion. Evans article, however, was not concerned with what people do in the name of religion -


Your last phrase is dead on and highlights how Evans and those supporting his position are being dishonest and attacking a non-existent straw man.
Evans' title also highlights his dishonesty and fallacious rhetoric, because neither Dawkins no the others he attacks are oppossed to religion simply because they do not beleive in God, which is what his title asserts.
Dawkins and others oppose certain features that are empirically common to religious belief systems and arguably inherent and neccessary to all faith based systems and monotheistic systems (namely faith, the promotion of faith and anti-reason as the basis of belief, and authoritarian deference).
Unlike Evans and apparently yourself, Dawkins and others have enough basic knowledge of human psychology, social science, and history to recognize that concepts and ideas are real things that have real impact on human behavior and thus on sociological/political systems.

As you say, Evans does not address the issue of the consequences of religious beleif, because he is not interested and makes zero effort toward criticizing Dawkin's actual ideas about religion or his justification for these ideas. Evans is only interested in attacking a non-existent position that religion should be attacked solely on the basis that the ideas are not factually correct.

[godfree1]

Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naively pro-science[.]

Presuming that at least one god exists is a perfect excuse for ignorance, superstition, hatred, species-centricity, heterosexism and stupidity to flourish--and just look at our twenty-first century world today for some disgustingly living proof.

There are many species of atheism, just as there are many species of religion.

In my view, either one believes in the existence of gods or one does not. Partition and compartmentalize these conditions as you will. I wish some precious human genius would discover one day that god-believers and non-believers were two different species. Should I be careful what I wish for? (Choose sides, agnostics!)

But while many religions still thrive, most of the atheisms that have ever existed are now extinct.

Religions thrive because human desperation thrives. It's far easier for humanity to believe in anything rather than itself. Conveniently, supernatural male gods and idols are conjured up to absorb such desperate, pathetic, mindless belief. And the vicious cycle turns back upon itself ...

The non-religious person today is, therefore, rather like a person who wanders into a shop to buy a breakfast cereal and finds only one variety is for sale.

I wish the author knew what it was like to spend 24 hours as a homosexual atheist ekeing out an existence in a belligerently heterosexist, theistic world--just 24 hours. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he would have committed suicide long ago, because he's the kind of person who's that weak.

Moreover, this variety isn't very tasty, because the kind of atheism that flourishes today is old and tired.

These message boards are evidence to the contrary. Much to my chagrin, there even exist atheist homophobes; that's brand-new to me. Go figure. It's true, though; I've even tested the theory here.

Today's prominent atheists - people such as Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins - hawk around a belief system that reeks of the 19th century, which is not surprising, for that is when it was born.

Atheism is not a "belief system," and the author makes no attempt to expound upon his unfounded generalization.

Dawkins is virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically illiterate - thus manifesting all three of the main characteristics of the old atheism in a particularly pure form.

Since I'm virulently anti-religious, passionately pro-science and artistically literate, I must manifest within myself at least two of the old characteristics of "the old atheism" in pure form and one characteristic which must be unique to a new kind of twentieth-century atheism that has recently given way to an even newer twenty-first-century atheism. It almost seems evolutionary ...

His attacks on religion are so vitriolic and bad-tempered that they alienate the sensitive reader and give atheism a bad name.

The bitterest truths are the hardest to swallow, but I suggest we get used to it. Atheism couldn't give itself a worse name in this monstrously theistic world, and I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass about some poor theist's sensitivities. I fight fire with fire.

As a friend of mine once commented, no other atheist has done more for the cause of religion than Richard Dawkins.

Nothing has done more for the cause of atheism than the gods that god-believers believe in. Any god worth its salt should have been able to stop the Indonesian tsunami dead in its tracks, but no god lifted a god-like finger to stop it. (The author shouldn't stop chewing on that.)


Controversial?

Transparent theistic garbage, maybe.



Theism makes me embarrassed to be human.
--godfree1

[MollyMac]

Your last phrase is dead on and highlights how Evans and those supporting his position are being dishonest and attacking a non-existent straw man.
No it doesn’t. My last phrase simply points out what the article is not about. I agree that the straw man you mention is non-existent, however.

Evans' title also highlights his dishonesty and fallacious rhetoric, because neither Dawkins no the others he attacks are oppossed to religion simply because they do not beleive in God, which is what his title asserts.
How do the words ‘The 21st century atheist’ do all that?


Unlike Evans and apparently yourself, Dawkins and others have enough basic knowledge of human psychology, social science, and history to recognize that concepts and ideas are real things that have real impact on human behavior and thus on sociological/political systems.
Gosh, really? People react to ideas? Now that’s something I never learnt in my years as a history and social science undergraduate. I doubt if Dr Evans will have enough basic knowledge to recognise this either – too busy writing frivolous books (http://www.dylan.org.uk/evpsych.html) on evolutionary psychology, I should think. :rolleyes:

As you say, Evans does not address the issue of the consequences of religious beleif, because he is not interested
Really? Where does Dylan Evans say he is not interested in the consequences of religious belief? Perhaps in some other article he wrote somewhere? And there’s me assuming that he didn’t write about it in that article because that article is about something else!

I’m sorry, but I am unable to grasp this idea that if an atheist writes about religion then they must write about the negative consequences of it. It was obvious to me that Evans’ separation of the aesthetics of religion from the ethics of it was deliberate and that the fact that he didn’t address the latter in that one article, doesn’t mean he doesn’t know or care about it.

and makes zero effort toward criticizing Dawkin's actual ideas about religion or his justification for these ideas.
Nobody would disagree that Dawkins is (1) a prominent atheist who is (2) virulently anti-religious and (almost) no atheists care that he (3) antagonises believers or alienates sensitive readers - least of all Dawkins himself, I’ll wager. That being the case, Evans doesn’t need to engage with what Dawkins actually says about religion in order to illustrate his point about his brand of atheism being unpalatable to many.

Evans is only interested in attacking a non-existent position that religion should be attacked solely on the basis that the ideas are not factually correct.
Well you should know – you seem to be something of an expert in attacking non-existent positions.

[Vorkosigan]

Nobody would disagree that Dawkins is (1) a prominent atheist who is (2) virulently anti-religious and (almost) no atheists care that he (3) antagonises believers or alienates sensitive readers - least of all Dawkins himself, I’ll wager.

(3) is nonsense, MollyMac. We've had numerous threads on Dawkins here, and hardly anyone approves of Dawkins' antagonizing religious believers. Although, as I pointed out above, Dawkins is like those Super Queers who appear in Gay Pride parades french kissing each other in public -- he draws fire that would otherwise be directed at moderates at yourself, allowing you moderates to extend a hand to moderates on the other side. Dawkins serves an important function and should be left alone.

That fact is that Evans wrote an ignorant, stupid, poorly-thought out article whose flaws have been mercilessly exposed. The fact that he writes acceptable books on Ev Psych does not excuse backstabbing one's fellow atheists in public. I saw enough of that shit in the Taiwan independence movement and in local politics here subsequently. There are way more facists than us, they have more money and are better organized, and they are totally without scruples. Why not go after them?

Vorkosigan

[Gurdur]

(3) is nonsense, MollyMac.
Very wrong.
We've had numerous threads on Dawkins here, and hardly anyone approves of Dawkins' antagonizing religious believers.
Also very wrong. In this thread alone, there have been numerous aspersions cast on Evans as a scientist, as an atheist, and even characterizing his piece as "typical theistic garbage". Hardly rational responses.
That fact is that Evans wrote an ignorant, stupid, poorly-thought out article
Wrong. Given so many of the "objections" to his piece in this thread, "poorly thought out" applies far more to them.
whose flaws have been mercilessly exposed.
Wrong again. The flaws in the "objections" -- mostly unsupported assertions and aspersions -- are the ones to have been exposed.
The fact that he writes acceptable books on Ev Psych
IOW, he has a far better scientific CV than many of his detractors who have cast aspersions on him as a scientist.
does not excuse backstabbing one's fellow atheists in public
Pot, kettle, black.
The sooner atheism as a public movement distances itself from the extremists, the better for it. Evans' piece is a good step in that direction.

Now, pardon me injecting some rationality into this discussion, :) , but very obviously no attempt by the detractors has been made to actually deal with the points made by Dylan Evans --- instead, there's been a lot of hyper-emotional ranting.
The fact that Dylan Evans has very good points to make is borne out by te discussion we had with him over at the Heathen Hangout (http://www.heathenhangout.com), and mainly by the fact that Dylan Evans is far more effective than his detractors here --- the Guardian (and also the Sydney Morning Herald, where the piece was reprinted) have far more of an actual impact than a thread on a bulletin board consisting of emotional flames.

The fact that some here cannot bear criticism is no-one else's problem than their own; and IMHO, the sooner public atheism distances itself from the virulently, histrionically and, above all, ineffectual anti-religious, the better for it as a real and successful alternative.

[Gurdur]

According to Evans,...atheists
Wrong. Some atheists.
The author then raises a few logically crippled strawmen, including arguing that there is a contradiction between being pro-science and treating science as a means to an end,
Wrong again. Hopelessly muddled. Perhaps actually quoting the bit of the article that you want to refer to might help.
And its his opponents who are emotive and vitriolic! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Let's see. :D
Comments on this thread:
Yet another douche
the "let's play nice" cowards
Mr. Evans who disapproves of positive atheism, is a positive Bush hater
Odd, Dr. Evans is actually promoting positive atheism, and criticisng Bush does not make him a "Bush hater".
.... constant flow of this self-validating crap
Clearly knows nothing about it ....
One can take issue with Dawkins' tactics, but to deny the passion and anger that fuels them is to deny that atheism has any valid basis.
What a strange non sequitur.
Yes, but many people here are American, where we have a very serious problem with a rapidly ascending Christian facist movement.
Oh puh-leeze. Where is the strong "fascist movement" in the USA ?
Of course, personal attacks -- which I have refrained from --
... that yammerhead Evans...
I will inform you that Dr. Evans is a member of this board.
......the man was a fool,
Transparent theistic garbage,
So after all that, there seems to be a good case for characterizing such personal attacks as emotive and vitriolic.
:rolling:
...clearly NOT as ten minutes at Infidels would let anyone know.
Wrong again. Dr. Evans seems indeed to have hit a fair few nails on the head.
I've been almost 5 years on this board, and I agree with many of his points.
No, thanks. I'd rather not divide atheists into little groups by deciding which ones are right and which ones aren't. That's what Christians do, Gurdur.
Oh really, Vorkosigan ? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104622)
I also think there's far too much my-atheism-is-superior-to-yours going on here.
Take your own advice. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104622)
It's impossible to have "rational" discussion about a poorly-constructed article that doesn't understand religion and thinks atheists are herd animals.
Strawman. Try actually discussing with Dr. Evans, who is after all a member of this board.

[MollyMac]

(3) is nonsense, MollyMac. We've had numerous threads on Dawkins here, and hardly anyone approves of Dawkins' antagonizing religious believers.
Fair enough. I based my comment on my own reactions to Dawkins articles and on the opinions expressed in this thread. If “hardly anybody approves�, as you say, I find it odd that nobody is willing to concede that he helps religion. Why don’t they approve?

Although, as I pointed out above, Dawkins is like those Super Queers who appear in Gay Pride parades french kissing each other in public -- he draws fire that would otherwise be directed at moderates at yourself, allowing you moderates to extend a hand to moderates on the other side. Dawkins serves an important function and should be left alone.
I can assure you I am not and never have been a moderate as is evidenced by many of my posts on this board over the past few years. The fact that I defend Evans’ right to criticise Dawkins and to write about one aspect of religion without addressing the other aspects does not make me a moderate. Your analysis of Dawkins ‘function’ does not apply in the UK where atheism is not the dirty word it seems to be in the US.

That fact is that Evans wrote an ignorant, stupid, poorly-thought out article whose flaws have been mercilessly exposed. No they haven’t. The only reason I find myself defending the article is because most the responses in this thread have been execrable and have missed his point entirely.


The fact that he writes acceptable books on Ev Psych does not excuse backstabbing one's fellow atheists in public.
I’m not suggesting it is. My pointing out that he’s qualified to write a book on evolutionary psychology was a response to an idiotic suggestion that he doesn’t have a basic knowledge of psychology etc. As for backstabbing a fellow atheist – oh for goodness sake! Is atheism some kind of brotherhood to which we must all pledge our allegiance? By writing in the Guardian newspaper, Evans stabs Dawkins in the front and I’m sure Dawkins can take it.

I saw enough of that shit in the Taiwan independence movement and in local politics here subsequently. There are way more facists than us, they have more money and are better organized, and they are totally without scruples. Why not go after them?
I’m not sure who you’re addressing here or what it’s got to do with having a discussion on atheism in the 21st century, which is what Evans article was trying to do and which is what I came to a forum entitled Positive Atheism hoping to do. I give up. :banghead:

[Pheno]

I think the main problem with Evan's article is that it is hypocritical in a most obvious way. He advocates diversity of atheist "species" but in the same breath launches a quite nasty attack on another species which he doesn't like! He also slams Dawkins for being "vitriolic and bad tempered", but I found this article just as virtriolic and bad temptered as anything I've read of Dawkins'.

Sad really, but this sort of article is why I don't ever buy the Guardian (and why I have a very low opinion of "Doctors" at Polytechnics) :)

[Gurdur]

....Sad really, but this sort of article is why I don't ever buy the Guardian
Strange, because The Guardian does not only consist of Evans. Or even anywhere near mostly.
(and why I have a very low opinion of "Doctors" at Polytechnics) :)
*shrug*
Since he has:
1997-99 London School of Economics: Ph.D. programme in Philosophy.
....
1996 State University of New York at Buffalo (Fulbright Scholarship).
Courses taken in the PhD program in Comparative Literature.
.....
1994-95 University of Kent: M.A. in Psychoanalytic Studies in the Humanities (Distinction).

1987-91 University of Southampton: B.A. (Hons) in Spanish with Linguistics (First Class).

Then perhaps that judgment of yours might not be too valid at all.

[Pheno]

Strange, because The Guardian does not only consist of Evans. Or even anywhere near mostly.

...did you see the critical 3 words "this sort of"? Their journalism is consistently of an overly provocative and poorly researched nature, and this article is another example.



*shrug*
Since he has:
1997-99 London School of Economics: Ph.D. programme in Philosophy.
....
1996 State University of New York at Buffalo (Fulbright Scholarship).
Courses taken in the PhD program in Comparative Literature.
.....
1994-95 University of Kent: M.A. in Psychoanalytic Studies in the Humanities (Distinction).

1987-91 University of Southampton: B.A. (Hons) in Spanish with Linguistics (First Class).

Then perhaps that judgment of yours might not be too valid at all.

*shrug* He's currently a Dr at the "University of the West of England" and writing internally inconsistent articles - seems to back up my judgement to me.

[Gurdur]

...did you see the critical 3 words "this sort of"? Their journalism is consistently of an overly provocative and poorly researched nature, and this article is another example.
Only in your opinion, and you confuse "journalism" with "opinion-editorial" pieces.
The two are nowhere near the same.
*shrug* He's currently a Dr at the "University of the West of England" and writing internally inconsistent articles - seems to back up my judgement to me.
Really ? May I ask your basis of judgment ?

[Pheno]

Only in your opinion, and you confuse "journalism" with "opinion-editorial" pieces.
The two are nowhere near the same.

Yes, and I was only expressing "my opinion". And I was expressing my opinion of Guardian articles in general which are of poor quality and overly inflamatory. Really, you are spoiling for a fight aren't you? Nothing like a Guardian reader scorned :rolling:


Really ? May I ask your basis of judgment ?

A comparison of 4 years studying at a 'red brick' university compared with 2 years studying at an ex polly. The gulf in quality was so large as to be staggering.

[Gurdur]

Yes, and I was only expressing "my opinion". And I was expressing my opinion of Guardian articles in general which are of poor quality and overly inflamatory. Really, you are spoiling for a fight aren't you? Nothing like a Guardian reader scorned :rolling:
I actually read The Times, The Daily Mirror, the Sydney Morning Herald, Stern and Das Spiegel too.
Your judgment seems to be ... more than false. Simply off-track.
A comparison of 4 years studying at a 'red brick' university compared with 2 years studying at an ex polly. The gulf in quality was so large as to be staggering.
You haven't specified your basis of judgment.

[Vorkosigan]

Is atheism some kind of brotherhood to which we must all pledge our allegiance?

I invite you to contemplate the maxim that if we do not hang together....considering all the topics on atheism that Evans could have written on, do you think a poorly-constructed, hypocritical, and self-validating attack on Dawkins had a high priority?

No they haven’t. The only reason I find myself defending the article is because most the responses in this thread have been execrable and have missed his point entirely.

He didn't have a point, except "LOOK HOW GREAT I AM!"

I’m not sure who you’re addressing here or what it’s got to do with having a discussion on atheism in the 21st century, which is what Evans article was trying to do and which is what I came to a forum entitled Positive Atheism hoping to do. I give up.

I am very sorry to have interrupted your search with the utterly strange, sick, and negative viewpoint that atheists should focus their energy on creating positive change in the world, and not on attacking each other. Oh, the horror!

Vorkosigan

[Pheno]

I actually read The Times, The Daily Mirror, the Sydney Morning Herald, Stern and Das Spiegel too.
Your judgment seems to be ... more than false. Simply off-track.

ok, cool. So do you want to keep on arguing "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is" or shall we agree to have different opinions?

You haven't specified your basis of judgment.

Expalin what I have to do to give you a valid specification and I might try.

[Gurdur]

I invite you to contemplate the maxim that if we do not hang together....
Already answered.
He didn't have a point, except "LOOK HOW GREAT I AM!"
Wrong again. This thread wouldn't exist if that was true.

[Gurdur]

...Expalin what I have to do to give you a valid specification and I might try.
I've already seen your basis of judgment -- you imply I am a typical Guardian reader, whatever that may be, without even checking to see if you were right first, and you refuse to give any proper academic critique of his qualifications, merely casting unbased aspersions on them.
I'm satisfied as to your basis of judgment.

[Pheno]

Already answered.

Wrong again. This thread wouldn't exist if that was true.

False logic. The existence and length of threads is not a valid indicator of the quality of the subject being discussed.

[Gurdur]

False logic. The existence and length of threads is not a valid indicator of the quality of the subject being discussed.
*sigh*
Allow me to state the obvi