|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheist attitudes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You words are very eloquent, but are also completely wrong. You describe a moderate atheist who respectfully disagrees with a theist or asks respectful questions. Virtually no-one would call this "militant atheism." The term "militant atheist" is reserved for those who are especially aggressive against theism or specific forms of it, those who are engaged in a verbal battle to wipe out religious belief. The first definition of "militant" from dictionary.com is:
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
and this is how the term is used regarding "militant atheists" such as Richard Dawkins. The wikipedia article on militant atheism begins by saying:
Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion" explaining that this "requires more than strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful" Richard Dawkins is the prime example of a "militant atheist." Here are two Dawkins quotes from The God Delusion:
I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
This has a militant tone which is lacking from your description above. You describe a moderate atheist, but Dawkins is a militant atheist. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.
(And yes, I would use the same adjective for creationists who try to wipe out all mention of evolution from libraries and schools. These are "militant creationists" just as Dawkins is a "militant atheist.") Edited by kbertsche, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:The T-shirt is more of a borderline issue; it depends on what the T-shirt says and where you wear it. There are cases of school kids being banned from wearing in-your-face Christian T-shirts, and these could perhaps be called cases of "militant theism." I do not see the "chasm of hypocrisy" that you claim; it seems to me that there is a fairly level playing field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:The key in both dictionary.com and wikipedia is "active hostility." If these folks are "actively hostile" to another group they could be considered "militant" in their position. quote:Dawkins is "actively hostile" to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. This qualifies him as "militant." quote:It sounds like you are not "actively hostile" toward the KKK. So no, you are not "militant" toward them. quote:So you claim. I disagree. quote:Certainly he does. He is "vigorously active and aggressive" against God and religion. (These words do not imply any physical action--the activity can be verbal.) quote:Perhaps, but it is certainly a more objective source than the hearsay evidence and subjective impressions repeated in this thread. Can you recommend a more objective or reliable source? A scientific or sociological study, perhaps? quote:No, "extreme" views are not sufficient to qualify for the label of "militant." "Militant" requires an "active hostility." quote:I see no implication of "action" from dictionary.com. Exactly the opposite, in fact; they have put the "action" in definition 2. "Active hostility" is largely a function of the message being communicated. Does the group in question project a positive or a negative message? Is it for or against an idea or group? Christianity has both aspects, but any "militancy" is associated almost entirely with the negative parts of the Christian message (sin, judgment, hell, etc.) Speaking of God's love, care, provision, etc. could hardly be labeled as "militant." Atheism, on the other hand, has an almost entirely negative message. Even in the name "atheism" you identify what you are against, not what you are for. So perhaps there really is a fundamental asymmetry between atheism and Christianity in regard to "militance." It is perhaps more common for an atheist to be "militant" simply due to the nature of his message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You're right--my wording was poor. But it is still true that "atheism" communicates a negative concept, not a positive one. The word identifies what you are without rather than what you are with.quote:You do realize that this is absolutely wrong, don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, Dawkins is far more inflammatory and actively hostile than you describe. He claims to be "attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," and describes God as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent." This is not just a passive a-theistic unbelief, it is an intentionally inflammatory, militant, anti-theistic attack. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:As Hyroglyphx said, Dawkins does uniformly accuse everything religious as dangerous. And I believe this does promote hatred toward God and religious faith. How can you have read The God Delusion and not seen this? It is frequent in the book!quote:Except that he doesn't. He accepts there are good points to religion. And show me one instance, just one, where he can be considered to be planting seeds of hate. Here are some examples (GD=The God Delusion):
Dawkins writes:
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."--reference unknown??"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"--GD p. 31 "I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."--GD p. 36 God described as "the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent"--GD p.38 "I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology ... is a subject at all."--GD p. 57 "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."--GD p. 308
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It should be patently obvious that God is completely different from Sauron, faeries, spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, cosmic teapots, etc--whether you believe in God's existence or not. God garners devotion and generates strong feeling. Many have given up promising careers in the sports or business world for a life of poverty in service to God. Many have sacrificed their lives as martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the other characters above. I haven't found a very good analogy to convey this yet, but perhaps this rewording of Dawkins will illustrate the point: "I think a case can be made that belief in the holocaust is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.""The holocaust is one of the most unpleasant events in all fiction." "I am attacking belief in the holocaust and anything and everything related to it." "I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that holocaust studies are a subject at all." "Belief in the holocaust is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument." Do you see how this could be seen as offensive and planting seeds of hate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Absolutely not. See Message 67.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Perhaps my argument in Message 67 was not clear enough, but what you say supports it well. Dawkins takes a few shots at Islam and Allah, but directs most of his salvo against Christianity and the God of the Bible. If he had concentrated mainly on Islam and Muslims, and if his books were promoted in countries with large Muslim populations, I am certain that there would have been many Muslim claims of hatred. We've seen riots caused by cartoons which were much milder than Dawkins' rhetoric.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I have never accused Dawkins of "hate mongering." If you disagree Hyroglyphx' claim (Message 52) that Dawkins is "planting the seeds of hate" please take it up with him. If you disagree with Modulus' sub-thread title in Message 62 please take it up with him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Good questions! I'm not sure that I can give a convincing answer for why, but I believe it is true. If one has a very deep emotional vesting in an idea or belief, especially one where persecution and hatred already exist, he is more likely to view negative comments as promoting or contributing to hatred. I believe we see that this is true regarding Christianity, Islam, and belief in the holocaust. Perhaps some of this can be attributed to over-sensitivity (e.g. Muslims seem to riot for minor offenses that are common against Christians). Or perhaps it is due to an under-sensitivity on the part of the attackers (e.g. those who attack the holocaust). Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I agree that the analogy is not very good, but I couldn't find a better one. I want an agreed non-fiction analogy that generates very strong feelings and for which some have given their lives. I can't think of any human individuals that fit this description.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:False. quote:I agree; this is not sufficient to earn the title of "militant." quote:No, I believe "nonverbal" is too restrictive. quote:This is not a sufficient qualification for the term "militant." I defined and supported my usage of "militant" in Message 29. Wikipedia has a number of examples of how the term "militant atheism" is used. I believe my usage of the term conforms to common usage. You are free to disagree with common usage and to try to change it, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:True, race and religion are not equivalent. But race and religion are both protected against discrimination in US federal law (e.g. employment, housing, etc.). So in a discussion of predjudice, discrimination, tolerance, etc, shouldn't there be an interchangeability between the two?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024