Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

quote:

---

You believe that moderates are equal or culpable for the actions of the fanatics?

---

When they do not stand up and loudly and frequently denounce the actions of the fanatics, yes, they are culpable.

quote:

---

That said, how on earth do we measure such a thing,

---

It is not an easy thing to measure, to be sure. Media these days tend to ignore moderate voices, so that wouldn't be a fair metric. I suppose that one would need to send researchers into a sampling of churches which claim to be opposed to the fanatics and see how often they actually address their congregations against fanatcism or the people who promote it.Right here on EvC, there are only a couple of christians who I see loudly and frequently denouncing fanaticism within their own religion. Others speak up occasionally, but not as forcefully as they do and not anywhere near as often.

quote:

---

and how long do people have to keep denouncing the actions of the fanatics?

---

For as long as fanatics exist and are in positions of power.

quote:

---

Atheists were very much instrumental in attacking and killing theists (as well as other atheists) from time to time. Are we culpable for not constantly discussing those issues?

---

If there were Atheists in power who were currently attacking and oppressing and killing theists, then yes, we would be culpable for not constantly denouncing those fanatical atheists.I have never been a fan of Dawkins, and I do think that he goes too far in denouncing religion. But he really has no power that comes close to the power that theists wield in this world.

quote:

---

As it is many religious people and orgs do denounce the actions of theistic fanatics, when they happen. So doesn't that invalidate Harris's criticisms of all theists?

---

I think so, yes.

quote:

---

I've always thought it ridiculous for people to point out 'religion' as a cause of 'all' war when arguably the most prolific genocidal murderers have been atheists.

---

That's not true.

quote:

---

Dawkins is almost comical in his crusade to single-handedly destroy religion, seemingly incapable of realizing that the best way to get back at God is to just not talk about Him.

---

All this time and you still don't understand non-belief.By definition, Dawkins cannot be talking about God, or trying to "get back at" God as he doesn't believe in the supernatural.Are you trying to "get back at" the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Flying spaghetti Monster when you talk about their non-existence, or if you do not talk about them at all?No, what Dawkins is opposed to is irrational religious beliefs that people hold.The existence of the supernatural is simply a non-issue.

quote:

---

Gengis Kahn was no atheist. Torquemada was no atheist. None of the Popes have been atheists, I think we can agree on that?

---

Let's not forget the good, Godly European Christians, including missionaries and men of the cloth, who nearly exterminated nearly all of the many millions of American Indians and Mexican Indians.Our country exists in large part due to genocide perpetrated by Christians.

quote:

---

What purpose does it serve to 'promote' atheism?

---

Well, from an Atheist's point of view, fewer theists means fewer people with irrational beliefs in invisible entities which theists say guide their actions.You don't find many Atheists willing to kill themselves and thousands of others in the name of Athesim, do you?

quote:

---

The moderates do force feed crap, brainwash style, on other human beings before they are able decide for themselves. They force on them mode of behaviour & belief, based on the promise of reward and the fear of unimaginable suffering. At no point were the individuals asked, nor is it ever considered that any other belief system or none at all would serve the individual better.

---

Except for the Amish (not that they would be considered moderates)See "rumspringa".

Well, unlike many religions, the Amish (at least some sects) allow and even encourage teenagers and young adults to experience and even live in the outside world for a time so that they make a real choice to return to the Amish community or stay in the modern world.I have known a couple of people who's parents left the Amish community during this time and decided to remain away from it.

quote:

---

Or perhaps I know it all too well and mention the unmentionable.

---

How very condecending of you to declare that you know others' minds better than they do.What gall.

quote:

---

You don't attack strawmen because they aren't real and they pose no threat.

---

Who says that the FSM isn't real?

quote:

---

God, unlike the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, has always had that effect, even in the unbeliever, to offer a twinge of doubt in the atheist towards His existence.

---

Again, how is it that you know exactly what every unbeliever believes?Perhaps you have a weak faith in God, and you have a twinge of doubt that you may be deluding yourself (as you believe all those people who believe 'false religions' are), and you are simply projecting your own uncertainty on to unbelievers.

quote:

---

But my saying that he is interested in getting back at God was a bit of a Freudian slip on my part. I wouldn't expect an atheist to understand what I'm talking about. I would expect a former atheist who is now a theist to understand what I'm talking about. Its about tacit recognition. I'll just leave it at that.

---

Again, how utterly arrogant to presume to think you know this.

quote:

---

If belief in a Creator(s) is irrational, then the majority of human beings, past and present, fit into this category.

---

Yes, you are quite correct.Humans are, generally speaking, incredibly irrational.Why do you think there are so many identified logical fallacies? Perhaps it could be the case that there are so many because humans are prone to so many?Why do you think that the scientific method is specifically designed to compensate for human bias? Maybe that's because humans are inherently perceptually biased and unless compensated for, this bias will skew results?

quote:

---

And if they are irrational, then something is fundamentally wrong with nature that gave them such a prediliction to begin with?

---

Nothing is "fundamentally wrong" with human nature. We are well adapted to a hunter/gatherer life on the savanah. All of those "irrational" biases served us well when making snap judgements about whether or not to trust that approaching person over yonder, for example.However, for the sorts of things we do today, and the technologies and people and cultures and ideologies and political stances we must deal with, all of those old propensities are inadequate, and often get in the way of effective thinking.Now, logic and reason are needed more than ever, not reliance upon emotion and bias and prejudice as was effective for the majority of our evolution. Unfortunately, logic and rationality are mostly acquired skills, and are not all that simple or easy to learn. These concepts of logic are not particularly natural for humans; hence the numerous fallacies, prejudices, and biases we have always displayed.

quote:

---

Can I assume that you must think of yourself and those of your ilk to be, perhaps, superior from an evolutionary standpoint?

---

No, not at all. We still have all the same inborn irrational minds.

So, if we gave you a test on the Theory of Evolution similar to the one you provide for the bible, and you failed, would that mean that you aren't qualified to claim anything about Evolutionary Biology, nor is your explanation for why you reject the ToE to be considered legitimate?

quote:

---

When Christians discriminate against atheists, they find themselves in a court that openly asserts the existence of God, makes people swear on Bibles, and has a legal tradition of disallowing the testimony of atheists on the grounds that they can't take a meaningful oath to truthfulness without a God to be swearing to.

---

FYI, I recently registered to vote in New Hampshire, and they had me raise my right hand and swear that what I had written on my voter registration form was correct, but they did not say "so help you God" or anything religious at all. No Bible either.I immediately and happily noted the absence of any mention of God in my secular government.

quote:

---

The inabililty of so many (otherwise) intelligent people to reconcile a God of Wrath/Justice/Love has been the most astonishing aspect of my time here.

​

{AbE}This especially since we are so capable of being the same ourselves. Any parents here?

---

If any parent in the US treats their child the way that God treats his children in the Bible, we put them in jail.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I see. What do you propose we do about that?

---

Education is the key.We need to do a much better job of teaching the populace to use critical thinking and logic, help them become more skeptical of claims and not simply believe what they are told just because it makes them feel good, teaching them all about the many ways our minds and emotions can and do cloud our logic and perception.We have a dangerous time ahead of us; the world is increasingly dependent upon science and technology at the same time the world's populace is increasingly likely to reject (in favor of irrational supernaturalism) the very thought processes (critical thinking, rationality and logic) that allow one to understand science and technology.

quote:

---

Children are indoctrinated with the information "Evolution is fact" from the day they were born. Steeped in it they are.

---

Not in america, they aren't.And there are quite a few more ignorant religious nutjobs here in the US, too.Coincidence? I don't think so...

quote:

---

Evidence is evidence whether evidence of the 5 sense sort or evidence of the faith- based sort.

---

So, do you suggest that we start accepting scientists' "strongly-held beliefs" in the validity of their research claims as equal to empirical data?Like, would you take a drug that a group of religious scientists prayed about and they believe deeply in their hearts that it will be safe and effective?Or, would you feel more comfortable taking a drug that has been tested for safety and efficacy in a rigorous manner that does not permit "belief" to stand in for data?