The New Atheists

[Ghost of Electricity]

are awfully dogmatic, don't you think?

[yermom]

This reminds me I should make a trip to the bait shop some time soon. Need some nightcrawlers.

[Good Old Neon]

This reminds me I should make a trip to the bait shop some time soon. Need some nightcrawlers.

 

[cryptique]

This reminds me that I should probably close my eyes when I go under bridges.

[ikol]

This reminds me I should make a trip to the bait shop some time soon. Need some nightcrawlers.

 

But are you a master baiter?

[yermom]

I know my way around a pole.

[bjorn_skurj]

That's what Thaddeus Kosciuszko said!

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

In my former life before I managed to piss everybody off and get roundly chastised, I would have posted this:

 

 

However, I have reformed.

 

So I won't post it...

 

oh

 

wait....nevermind

[Ghost of Electricity]

Ok i can see how it may have looked like i was trying to bait. but really, i have just started getting into some of these books and was hoping to get some opinions without trying to give too much of my own away. I figured that there are some reasonably intelligent folk around here, so....feel free to rephrase the question and answer it how best you see fit.

[ih8music]

The only people more annoying than evangelical christians are evangelical atheists.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would actually give the annoying prize to the Christians, because at least the atheists aren't condemning you to hell if you don't agree with them. I mean, what an awful thing to threaten someone with.

[MattZ]

Hey Ghost - don't take it personally. There have been some real knock-down, drag-it-out, slugfests around here on this very topic. Many of the usual participants may try to avoid revisiting it. Then again, maybe not.

 

I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens. They are preaching to the converted with me, so to speak. But yes, they are awfully dogmatic. And patronizing. Then again, I think it's almost unavoidable for these discussions to travel down a patronizing path. After all, the atheist believes that the religious are basing their lives on a myth or fairy tale. You can try to sugarcoat it, and be respectful, but underneath it all, the foundation remains. It sets up an awfully odd dynamic. Dawkins and Hitchens seem to revel in it, of course, and I find them both incredibly annoying when they are on their soapboxes (even if I happen to agree with them).

[Good Old Neon]

When atheists, like the christianists, band together in an attempt to tread upon the basic human rights of fellow citizens based solely on wholly unsubstantiated dogmatic beliefs, when they attempt to introduce bogus scientific principles into our nation’s school’s curriculum, when they oppose the equivalent of stem cell research based purely on dogmatic, unsubstantiated beliefs, when they begin murdering people based on their profession, based purely on more of those same unsubstantiated, dogmatic beliefs, when they actively conspire to make this an “atheist nation”, by purging the political roster of anyone who does not share their view of reality, etc, etc, etc, then, perhaps, we can begin to compare the two.

 

But until that time, they’re not even in the same ball park, hell, they’re not even playing the same fucking game.

 

It’s interesting that attacks against Dawkins (Richard Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and, and too a lesser extent, Daniel Dennett, who, you pretty much cannot help but like on account of his resemblance to Santa Claus) usually center not on what he has to say, but how he says it. Given the anti-intellectual, evangelical spell this country has found itself under the influence of, I don’t think Dawkins has anything to apologize for, on the contrary, I find his strident defense of science and reason refreshing. Especially at a time when the religious right is comparing the health care bill to the holocaust, Obama to Hitler, and liberals to communist traitors. I also find it interesting that, outside of the US, Dawkins (et al) is widely respected, and rarely is he criticized for being dogmatic.

[MattZ]

It’s interesting that attacks against Dawkins (Richard Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and, and too a lesser extent, Daniel Dennett, who, you pretty much cannot help but like on account of his resemblance to Santa Claus) usually center not on what he has to say, but how he says it. Given the anti-intellectual, evangelical spell this country has found itself under the influence of, I don’t think Dawkins has anything to apologize for, on the contrary, I find his strident defense of science and reason refreshing. Especially at a time when the religious right is comparing the health care bill to the holocaust, Obama to Hitler, and liberals to communist traitors. I also find it interesting that, outside of the US, Dawkins (et al) is widely respected, and rarely is he criticized for being dogmatic.

 

All true, GON, but my religious friends aren't in the religious right and aren't comparing Obama to Hitler. They also don't have a problem with gay marriage or stem cell research. They are people that are deserving of respectful discourse, and much of Dawkins and Hitchens comes off as dismissive and patronizing. I don't think they have anything to apologize for, and as I said, I agree with them. But I am not surprised that people find them annoying. And fwiw, my guess is that their chosen method of spreading their message only serves to skew their audience to folks that already agree with them.

[ikol]

When atheists, like the christianists, band together in an attempt to tread upon the basic human rights of fellow citizens based solely on wholly unsubstantiated dogmatic beliefs, when they attempt to introduce bogus scientific principles into our nation’s school’s curriculum, when they oppose the equivalent of stem cell research based purely on dogmatic, unsubstantiated beliefs, when they begin murdering people based on their profession, based purely on more of those same unsubstantiated, dogmatic beliefs, when they actively conspire to make this an “atheist nation”, by purging the political roster of anyone who does not share their view of reality, etc, etc, etc, then, perhaps, we can begin to compare the two.

 

Ever hear of Communism?

[M. (hristine]

Why do atheists always get pitted against Christians?

[Good Old Neon]

All true, GON, but my religious friends aren't in the religious right and aren't comparing Obama to Hitler. They also don't have a problem with gay marriage or stem cell research. They are people that are deserving of respectful discourse, and much of Dawkins and Hitchens comes off as dismissive and patronizing. I don't think they have anything to apologize for, and as I said, I agree with them. But I am not surprised that people find them annoying. And fwiw, my guess is that their chosen method of spreading their message only serves to skew their audience to folks that already agree with them.

 

I’m not suggesting ALL (or even a majority of) Christians oppose same sex marriage, stem cell research, etc, but I would argue that, with very few exceptions, ONLY Christians, among other religious groups, oppose the aforementioned mentioned examples.

 

I agree that Dawkins and Hitchens (among others) can come across as condescending and inflexible at times, but to suggest they are as bad, as say, a Pat Robertson, is simply inaccurate.

 

Ever hear of Communism?

 

I have, and it’s a tired, bogus, inaccurate comparison. Every time we have this debate, that corpse is dragged out, just as every time we discuss global warming, someone points to mars and blames the sun, even though that equally tired claim has been discredited to death.

[ikol]

I’m not suggesting ALL (or even a majority of) Christians oppose same sex marriage, stem cell research, etc, but I would argue that, with very few exceptions, ONLY Christians, among other religious groups, oppose the aforementioned mentioned examples.

 

I'm pretty sure Muslims aren't too fond of gay marriage, and they take the even more absurd position of opposing bacon.

 

I agree that Dawkins and Hitchens (among others) can come across as condescending and inflexible at times, but to suggest they are as bad, as say, a Pat Robertson, is simply inaccurate.

 

I would hope that you have a higher standard than "not as bad as Pat Robertson."

 

I have, and it’s a tired, bogus, inaccurate comparison. Every time we have this debate, that corpse is dragged out, just as every time we discuss global warming, someone points to mars and blames the sun, even though that equally tired claim has been discredited to death.

 

I guess it's easier to claim that an argument has already been debunked than to actually debunk it. I am not trying to suggest that Communism was bad because it was atheist or that all atheists are Stalinists, but if your argument is that Christians have been exceptionally bad for humanity, then there's at least 100 million corpses that disagree with you.

[OOO]

While I do find Mr. Dawkin's methods annoying, at least he's being pushy and arrogant about facts and not things like Creationism or anything. I think he should tone it down, but he's not as bad as people who want to teach young earth stuff in school or don't want gay marriage, etc.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I ask you friends, I ask you. What's so wrong with dogma?

[W(TF)]

Why do atheists always get pitted against Christians?

 

Not sure if that's rhetorical or not, and I haven't read Dawkins..only heard him on the radio a few times. I've read Sam Harris, and in his first book The End Of Faith he seemed to have plenty of vitriol for all the major religions. (especially Christianity and Islam)

[Moss]

Hey Ghost - don't take it personally. There have been some real knock-down, drag-it-out, slugfests around here on this very topic. Many of the usual participants may try to avoid revisiting it. Then again, maybe not.

 

I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens. They are preaching to the converted with me, so to speak. But yes, they are awfully dogmatic. And patronizing. Then again, I think it's almost unavoidable for these discussions to travel down a patronizing path. After all, the atheist believes that the religious are basing their lives on a myth or fairy tale. You can try to sugarcoat it, and be respectful, but underneath it all, the foundation remains. It sets up an awfully odd dynamic. Dawkins and Hitchens seem to revel in it, of course, and I find them both incredibly annoying when they are on their soapboxes (even if I happen to agree with them).

 

This.

 

Witness "Religulous" which was also patronizing (even to those of us who agreed and enjoyed the movie). Dennet seems much less patronizing but he does it by very complex scientific arguments.

[bjorn_skurj]

Why do atheists always get pitted against Christians?

I don't think they get pitted against ALL Christians, but there are the Christians who can't live with the fact that everybody is not a Christian.

[ih8music]

I have no tolerance for intolerant people. The extremists on each side think people who disagree with their world view are wrong/stupid/evil/ignorant/etc. I'd rather talk to a fucking tree than be lectured to by someone who thinks they know all the answers.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I think all religions and spiritual practices can provide anyone with a solid moral compass that can lead them to do a hell of a lot of good through service and everyday decency. I think all of us, unconciously or not, either look for a morality to accept or a dogma to fight against.

 

Likewise, all religions and spiritual practices can inflict upon already suspect people dispositions ranging from unbearable pushiness to intolerance to extremist inclinations.

 

I think we all know at least one person who has bounced around between spiritual courses (raised a moderate Christian, defecting to extreme athiesm and then taking up yoga, becoming a vegan and finding "balance and serenity" in an equally pushy, obnoxious, unstable way, thinking of a friend of mine), and this to me says that people looking for something are going to grasp at what fits best, probably bouncing around a bit, and always holding on a bit too tight.