Atheism versus New Atheism

Until a couple of days ago, I never had even known that term. But after a person was friended, I checked out his profile, and found that term. Appears the term relates to the more recent line-up of atheistic writers--Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Stenger--and their more aggressive, in-your-face style of trying to discount all religion, and pretty much trying to make those who believe in some element of faith in their lives, and with the intent to tell everyone to grow the fuck up, and get rid of religious practices.

Okay, so I'm an atheist/agnostic. I've been one for years now, and that was hardly something I talked about with few people until I joined FB. And while I despise the radical religious right, the luddites who want to believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago, who choose to believe mega-church preachers will be welcomed with warmth through the pearly gates, my focus has never been to disarm people of their inherent right to believe in whatever they want to believe, as long as they don't try to make their beliefs the beliefs of a country, try to teach hare-brained ideas to children that cripple their fruitful brains, or harm anyone, I could give a rat's ass as to what someone believes.

I have many friends who worship quietly, without pushing anything on others. And I try to respect that aspect of our freedoms. I find the thought disquieting to be as extreme as the hard religious right, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think calling someone who has religious beliefs off their rocker (except for those mentioned above) is going way beyond the rules of etiquette and decorum, and is, just incredibly nasty.

A friend of mine once told me that she believed that everyone is here for a reason--everyone's life--or death--is a calling to, as she said, a "higher power." I personally feel she might be right in some ways. For this friend, I know the last seven years of her life were spent with the fervent hope that her terminal illness resulting from sleep apnea could help someone else avoid the problems she had. She used her faith to advocate for an action on the people she met. With some people, they believe their lives are destined to move in one direction, and not another. She never preached her faith, but showed people that her beliefs lead to something good, something she could actually relay to people.

Religion isn't really about who your god is, how to pray to him or her, or even how to follow the faith. It's about interpretation, and how a person views the world as a result of whatever connection they have to others, to themselves, and to their lives. If you believe in a god, and were raised within a belief system, it's one of the ways you practice what you've been taught. Depending on what value system you have, you will learn how to respect others, acknowledge their ideals and ideology, and become a worthy person. But once you begin to believe that you're better than someone else because of your belief system, you end up hurting someone, and you become a person who can't see others for themselves.

New atheism is a crock--a vehicle--as bad as the values of the radical religious right, or as bad as any group that chooses to put themselves first, and others second.



End of rant

tell me that.

I want them challenged. I think that's pretty common among skeptics and atheists.

However, by calling them delusions gives them no respect

and I would appreciate someone calling them such if the term is appropriate. It is a normal, common English word with a clear definition. Why can't we use it?

What does that matter?

It is only through that that we grow and learn more. Being left to sit in the stink of my own BS does me no good. As a teacher, if I don't challenge what I do and ask others to challenge what I do in the classroom, I'll never become a better teacher or person.

And where? What did they mean when they said it?

Let me assure you that religious people are not accommodationists. The large percentage of religious people find atheists - that's you - to be the most-despised and distrusted people in the country, and by a wide margin. You're more toxic to the rubes than a Muslim terrarist.

And why do they think that? Because they believe the myths of their holy books are actual history, that's why.

AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT.

Accommodating the religious is spineless. Get over yourself and see the world for what it is. Your position wins you no points on either side of the divide, so why not stand up and join the outspoken among us who are trying against great odds to drag the thinking of this nation into the 20th century for starters. You know, the century when science and reason moved this planet forward at an unprecedented speed.

That's a mature attitude. Sounds like the kind of mutual regard that has kept the Middle East such an "interesting" place for the last 1000 years.

What's wrong with live and let live on BOTH sides? You can't answer Brand-X intolerance with Brand-Y intolerance.

By staking out an "extreme" position, they move the debate to the left and make "tolerance" a more centrist position.

"What's wrong with live and let live on BOTH sides? You can't answer Brand-X intolerance with Brand-Y intolerance."

What planet do you live on. The religious have made sure that is not an option and the more religious people are the less of an option it is. You're characterization is in and of itself "intolerant" because you are labeling a dissenting point of view "intolerance." Essentially you are claiming that everyone has a right to promote his or her beliefs except atheists. Well, I am under no special duty to shut up. There is only one objective set of facts in the universe and religious claims are either right or wrong. I submit that they are wrong and that the sooner people's beliefs (and therefore actions) are in line with reality, the less suffering there will be.

Never mind it doesn't really matter to me.

You are however a prime example of an atheist worshiping Atheism.

I have known many harmless religious people, and I bet you have too. They're the ones that don't get on TV.

You along with many other militant Atheists confuse religion with politics.

Most of the religious people you clamor against are not religious but are political. They just use religion as a tool. Something it seems you inadvertently do yourself. They are probably less religious than you are.

"One objective set of facts in the universe" Wow! Would that include that the earth is flat? It would have 600 years ago. Who knows what the "objective set of facts" will be after 600 more years? Or even one more year.

You seem to forget that there are many many "Gods", who can say with 100% certainty that none do exist?

Myself? I'm agnostic, I have no religion. But I am tolerant.

It is obvious that you do not know anything about me or why I think what I think.

Worship is to pay homage to a diety. Atheism has no deities. Ergo, you're wrong. Maybe I'm being inflexible or dogmatic (I'm not) but by definition I am not worshiping and gods. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation by using the term "god" to mean one thing for believers and something else for nonbelievers.

I don't know that I have met ANY truly harmless human beings. To some degree we must all destroy to live. Generally speaking, however, the more religious someone is the more likely that he or she will either cause or accept the existence of harm because of religious dogma. Not all religious harm comes in the form of murdered doctors or suicide bombers. I spend more than a few sleepless nights as a teenager worried that I might have offended the holy spirit, however unintentionally, by thought, word, deed or omission and therefore damned myself to eternal torment (as JC said in the Bible). I worried about friends and family who were going to hell for not believing as I did and eventually learned to discount their value as people to calm my fears. I learned to hate gays and to a lesser degree women because the Bible said so. Before that, I always empathized with groups who suffered discrimination, but who was I to challenge the word of god? Belief in eternal salvation teaches us not to value this one life we have and it teaches us not to take responsibility for the world. It's all in god's hands--in other words "not my problem."

All religion is irrational, but the variety I know best is Christianity. The heart of which is that the vicarious suffering of an innocent person somehow redeems the rest of us from ancestral sin. Fist, ancestral sin is an evil concept because it makes people guilty of offenses they did not commit. Second, suggesting that making an innocent person suffer will make us less guilty rather than more so is evil to the core. It's not the peripheral or fringe elements that are the problem. It is the core beliefs of religion that makes it evil. And it is those core beliefs of unquestioning faith that make most of the "harmless" religious people accept most of the abuses.

And even if it were not so and religion did not cause harm, it is still founded on a lie. There is still no god and that alone is reason to oppose it.

Please answer one question, what proof do you have there is no God?

Of course I am also starting to regret bringing "God" into the discussion because often God has very little to do with religion. Religion is often more of a belief system. I also believe Atheism is a belief system, hence the exact same system that atheists say they despise.

I have an appointment soon so have to cut this short, sorry.

deity's existance. Do you have proof that any god exists? If not, then why even bother believing in him/them/it?

If you want to stick to the whole "atheism is a belief system" thing, then go ahead, tell us what we believe, this should be amusing.

This originated in post 26.

Deep13 stated: "There is only one objective set of facts in the universe and religious claims are either right or wrong. I submit that they are wrong and that the sooner people's beliefs (and therefore actions) are in line with reality, the less suffering there will be."

I submit they are wrong? The sooner peoples beliefs are in line with reality?

There can be no 100% certainty there is no God. In line with reality? Whose reality? Not mine, they can have any reality, or belief, they want, and so can you and Deep13.

And yes when you believe something, anything with 100% certainty, that is a belief, or theory or what ever you want to call it.

Now maybe for you atheism isn't a belief system, but for the person I was responding to, I think it is.

You seem to confuse objectivity with subjectivity. I don't know why, I live in the same universe as you, the same reality, you can believe anything you want, but if it doesn't align with reality then you are wrong. To give an example, if you drop an apple, it doesn't fall up, now does it? Reality cannot be bent in the manner you imply. If you believe that the apple falls up, but everyone else, our instruments and repeatable tests, prove it falls down towards the center of the Earth, whose perception is in error here?

If I claim to be a millionaire - far more real than gods, do you actively believe it is impossible for me to be one or do you simply ask for proof? Atheism is lacking belief without proof, not an active belief in absence (a very small subset of atheists have this active belief in absence - it is indeed a belief).

We can prove there are not specific self-contradictory or impossible-by-fact gods, such as a married bachelor god or a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time, but any gods at all? The vast majority of us simply do not believe because there is no evidence - the same way I do not believe there are any humans over 9'6" tall. It's not an act of faith that there are no giants of this stature - I'd happily change my mind if one showed up and demonstrated their height. I feel no different at all about the idea of gods. The only difference is those who may believe in giants are not trying, with considerable success, to force those beliefs into law and render me a second class citizen if I disagree. That's why like most atheists I care about religions, and specifically Christianity in the US just like Indian atheists rail against Hinduism mostly, more than giants.

knowledgeable of them, but arguing from ignorance, some people are far too close minded to even have a conversation with, but we still try, don't we?

I certainly believe it is possible for you to be a millionaire. No proof needed, because unless you are a friend or family member, I doubt it would affect me one way or another.

As for the second paragraph, I only have one thing to say. WOW!

Or wow you are trying to think of another silly argument to pretend you don't?

Therefore, it is up to the religious to prove that there IS a god.

Atheism is NOT a belief system. Atheists KNOW that science PROVES the laws of the universe. No faith or belief is involved.

As George Carlin said (paraphrasing): I KNOW that the sun will come up every morning. If I should worship something, it should be the Sun, because it is an absolute fact that it has come up every morning at a predictable time for millions and billions of years.

I don't have to believe that lift plus thrust must overcome drag plus gravity to get an object to fly. Those are scientific facts that Newton discovered that are what enable birds and airplanes to fly. If those laws of Newton did not exist, there would be no way to WILL them into existence to make birds and airplanes fly.

But I do believe you are right, I don't think there is a God either, but most people believe in one or another.

I don't think they believe proof is necessary. Atheist know science proves the laws of nature, true, it has proved those laws several different times and in many different ways. Science will probably "revise" them a few more times before I die if I'm lucky.

Atheism is not a belief system? A belief is knowing something with 100% certainty without proof. That goes for religion and sorry to say, atheism. They can't prove God exists(there IS a God), you can't prove God doesn't exist(there ISN'T a God). Sorry, that's a belief. Nothing wrong there, don't be ashamed of it.

I liked George Carlin and I'm glad he had something to believe in, if that made him happy good for him. Has the sun come up every day for billions of years, probably, but I don't know, nor do I care. I do care if it comes up tomorrow and the day after that, but I doubt worshiping it will make a difference. You do know the sun doesn't actually "come up" don't you? I thought so.

I read about Newton in college, Physics I believe. Now just what did birds and airplanes use to fly before Newton discovered these laws? Would it have made a difference if someone named Smith had discovered those laws? Would those laws be different if a God had created them? I don't get your point.

But here is my point, it doesn't matter to me if Newton invented gravity or just discovered it. It also wouldn't matter to me if a God had invented gravity. Gravity most likely has always been there, probably always will be at least for my life time, and how or why it got there is really of little consequence to me. Knowing about it, and I do know about it, and being able to use it to advantage, that's another story. In case you are wondering, I also know about cohesion, adhesion, molecular bonding, etc. I know lots of stuff.

You know that. And don't argue with me if you agree with me. I am well aware that birds flew millions of years before Isaac Newton existed. He just figured out and codified the laws of motion, as well as inventing calculus along with Leibniz. Newton did NOT invent gravity. That is silly. Gravity is related to aggregations of mass, as in the cooling of the interstellar matter into spinning disks, and big rocks that turned into planets. Gravity, the nuclear force, magnetism and all the laws of chemistry and physics we know about have existed since The Big Bang.

George Carlin said he was an atheist. He made the point that if he was to worship something, the sun would be a good thing to worship because it is absolutely reliable and we can calculate down to the second, anywhere on earth, what time and what place it will rise and set. In other words, it would make sense to worship something scientifically predictable.


This is similar to a quote attributed to Ferdinand Magellan: "The Church says the earth is flat, and I have seen the Shadow on the Moon, and it is round; and I have more faith in a Shadow on the Moon than in the Church."
Scientific evidence that the earth is round because the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round.


And yes, I know the Sun does not rise and set. We go around the sun, every 365.25 days and the moon goes around the earth every 28 days and some minutes, and falls back 50 minutes every day behind the apparent path of the Sun. The cause of the seasons is our axial tilt of 23.5 degrees from vertical. Sidereal time is four minutes short of 24 hours, so all the stars shift west from our apparent view on earth, four minutes, which comes out to 360 degrees in one year. The sun follows a path in the sky, E and W of the zenith, north and south of the celestial equator, throughout the year, called an analemma. That's the vertical infinity sign, which is asymmetrical, you find on a lot of earth globes.


The astrologers started looking at the stars in the ecliptic plane, which became the zodiac signs. They also did lots of calculations which when looked at scientifically, without the astrological sign mumbo jumbo, became astronomy. Read up on Omar Khayyam.


It doesn't matter whether the laws of nature were created by a god or not. I have no proof that there is a god, so my default position is that if there is a god or gods, he/she/it/they: 1)have not made their existence known to me personally and 2) might be such a big concept that our brains are not big enough to handle a bunch of concepts and dimensions that would constitute such a god.


(I live with a physicist/mathematician/engineer who constantly talks to me about gravito-magnetism, relativity, how to pentasect a square, how to lay out the frets on a guitar fingerboard and other such related topics.)

"A belief is knowing something with 100% certainty without proof." That is true.
Science has proof. That is what makes it different from religion. Read on.

Atheism is not a belief system. There is no belief involved in science. Scientific theories are tested. If they don't work they are discarded and new theories are generated (read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, about the paradigm concept). Science is self-correcting. Theories and results of experiments are compared and the theory is discarded if it does not explain the results. If you want to know how science works, I suggest you watch the COSMOS TV series by Carl Sagan.


Religion is not self-correcting when it makes errors. If one person lives through a horrible accident and another person dies, then the religious person says, "Well the guy that lived, God was lookin' out for him, and the other guy, well, God wanted him to die. He was Fucked!!!". It's a way of ignoring cause and effect, and is also incredibly insulting to the many innocent people who die from murder, accidents, tornadoes, etc., implying that if there is a god, he didn't care if those people died or not. And ignoring the random nature of natural disasters, etc. Those things that kill people, in the insurance industry those are called "Acts of God".
God must be a real bastard then!!!

Or as Mark Twain said, "God sees the sparrow fall. Yet, it falls."

A person can take any circumstance, and say it's god's will, and thus abdicate responsibility for one's life. A religious person can completely ignore causation this way.

I have a B.A. in Pre-med, and have studied chemistry and astronomy in depth for years.

No argument that millions could be wrong, and and in this case, probably are. And I'm sure you will agree we non-believers could also be wrong, again probably not, but even if slight, the possibility is there. I'm sorry you took my Newton reply so seriously, I was just kidding with you. Did it work the same right from the big bang? I think there is at least a moderate possibility that it did not. There is no doubt in my mind that magnetism didn't work as it does now while the planet was forming. The big bang itself? At least slightly improbable. But as far as conventional wisdom is concerned, you are exactly right.

George Carlin was just a fun part of the post for me, I knew he was an atheist. My analogy is not the sun but a large fruit tree and a small tribe of people. A brief explanation is that the tree provides shelter and food and is worshiped, I'm sure you get the idea that the tree would be their God.

I probably know more about astronomy than the normal layman, but thanks for the primer.

"It doesn't matter whether the laws of nature were created by a god or not." 1) God could be taking a long nap. The Republicans better watch out when he waked up! 2) Which is the one I like, except it would mean the religious freaks are more perceptive than we are. So lets go a little deeper. What is a God? Could it be so simple as all of us are God? The Gaia hypothesis says that all organisms are closely integrated. Perhaps religious people just see their inner self better than we do? Who knows, anything is possible.

Science has proof. The existence of God has never been proven wrong. Science has and will be proven wrong innumerable times, that's it's nature. When new facts come to light theories change, it happens all the time. It may even happen with gravity some day, who knows? "Science is self correcting" it can also be confusing, there are often many competing theories and the winner often comes down to a popularity contest. The formation of the universe and how it functions is a prime example of this. Unfortunately what makes science strong and interesting also gives it's enemies ammunition to use against it.

My posts started in response to post 26 where it was stated that religion was wrong because it didn't go along with "The Facts of the Universe". The rigidity to the belief in the facts of the universe but dismissing belief in religion struck me as hypocritical. I had no choice but to respond and so here we are.

Atheists say with 100% certainty that there is no God. To them there is no doubt. That is a belief, not science. Science knows it makes mistakes, hence the self correcting.

I don't think there is a God but have no proof so if some one thinks there is one, then fine, it doesn't hurt me. Now if I were to believe in a God, it most certainly would not be the Cristian one, too malevolent for me.

Again, thanks for the post, it was a pleasure reading it.

who we rant against aren't really religious? Who are you to judge their sincerity?

As far as your statement about the facts of the universe, well, there is only one set of facts, we haven't discovered them all yet, that doesn't stop them from being objective or being the only set of facts out there. You seem to be ignorant as to how the scientific process works.

Oh, and agnosticism isn't some go-between between atheism and theism, its a statement of knowledge, not belief.

I judge what they are sincere about.

I do know how the scientific process works. And I know that the "facts of the universe" are fluid and often a popularity contest and the winner is often short lived. Facts have a funny way of changing, valid today, not so much tomorrow. How do I know? I'm old enough to have seen many sets of "facts of the universe". I hope to live long enough to see more. It often gets to the point of being humorous, and honestly, I don't try to keep up anymore. You know why I don't try to keep up? It doesn't matter, plain and simple, it doesn't matter. The facts are what they are, whether we understand them or not. Answer just this one question and you will make me a believer, how does the scientific process prove there is no God?

You know what will help you to understand the scientific process? Knowing you can not prove a negative with 100% certainty. Stating a negative and saying it is a 100% sure thing, that's a belief.

You are right about agnosticism not being between atheism and theism. Atheism and Theism are both belief systems, agnosticism is not. Some people put their faith in today's "Facts of the Universe", and some put their faith in a more rock solid(to them) religious set of facts. They both look like guidelines for life to me.

So tell me, in 1200 would you have staked your life on the world being flat, or round? Facts of the universe being what they were, would you also have believed the sun circled the earth?

Things change, you are either able to change with them, or you are left behind. Keep an open mind, you never know what might fall in.

mostly because I would hope I would have had the same curiosity back then and read the Grecian natural philosophers. Particularly the Greek Geographer(inventor of geography) Eratosthenes, as his discoveries are interesting.

You are largely ignorant of the scientific process, and you illustrate it in your use of the word facts. Facts themselves aren't fluid, their discovery and interpretation in the form of theories and hypothesis are. The world was round when ignorant people thought it was flat, the fact of that didn't change, just the interpretation, in this case being really idiotic. In addition you can't prove a negative at all, unless it is in itself logically inconsistent, such as I know, with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as a square circle.

And because of this I will answer the question you have, no of course the scientific method can't prove there is no god(s). Its a negative, and therefore impossible to disprove.

I have no interest in making you a believer, but I will ask you this, do you have any belief in a deity?

You claim to keep an open mind, when yours is closed, as you stated in your first paragraph, that you don't keep up with the "facts"(actually theories and hypothesis) anymore.

ON EDIT: To keep with the Earth is flat comparison you made, those who believed in it being flat literally denied what their own eyes told them and the logical conclusion of that, look out to the ocean and you see the masts of a ship well before you see the hull, because of the curvature of the Earth.

You along with everyone else would have read about it. Well except most people could not read, especially if they weren't in the church. Oh, and they had no access to books, unless they were in the church. Curiosity? Well most likely you would have been curious about where your next meal was coming from.

I am largely ignorant of the scientific process? Well I guess I wasted all of that time in college. I even took Physics and a bunch of math. And my use of the word facts is wrong? Perhaps you should read all of the posts in this thread. That reference goes back to post 26 by Deep13 that I originally responded to.

Quote: "There is only one objective set of facts in the universe and religious claims are either right or wrong. I submit that they are wrong and that the sooner people's beliefs (and therefore actions) are in line with reality, the less suffering there will be." Perhaps you should talk to Deep13 about his belief in the "facts in the Universe".

My point in all of this is that what we know as a "fact" today, may not be a "fact" tomorrow, thus my use of the phrase facts are fluid. Facts are highly susceptible to perception, even in the same time frame, what one society believes may be the complete opposite of what another believes. We can agree on that can't we?

Now reality can be a tricky subject, who is right, who is wrong? You do know there are dozens, hundreds, probably even thousands of beliefs about the true reality of life, the universe, and everything. There are even people that believe we are a computer simulation generated from a planet size computer. Are they wrong? Probably, but I can't say with 100% certainty, can you? Check some out, the internet is your friend.

You being an expert in the scientific process will know that you never assume anything with complete certainty, that indeed no true scientist would ever say with 100% certainty that anything is the one and only true answer. No square circle? Don't tell that to the WWE.

I don't have an open mind because I don't keep up with the facts? What does that have to do with an open mind? I was mostly talking about string theory and Macro ideas like that. More fluid facts. Some flow quickly, like the origin of the universe and how it works, and some, like gravity, move like cold molasses. I used to follow the theories of the universe close for a layman, but no more, too little time left. And honestly, tell me how it would make a difference if I had kept following the changing theories? Gravity, probably true, and I do understand the theory along with cohesion, adhesion, molecular bonds and such. I have a very open mind about all of this stuff, it could be true, it may not be, doesn't matter to me.

Wow you can see the mast of a ship first? Who knew? Well in fact almost everyone now knows that fact, you let out no big secret. In 1200 very few people knew the significance of that fact.

I have seen a lot. I have even seen the impossible happen a few times. My beliefs in reality and what is possible are not rigid, are yours?

You seem to be quite confused for a scientist.

"Science and religion are completely different." No argument.

The rigidity of some in the beliefs of science and religion make the followers quite similar in many cases. If a person is not open to new ideas or other opinions they are not being scientific they are following a belief.

I don't like closed minds and I don't care if they follow science or religion, looks the same to me.

Science is often not based on fact but conventional wisdom, often majority rule, or even a popularity contest. Science has an inconvenient problem that the religious people use against it all the time, facts in science often change.

Science is a process, and it has no room for unfounded beliefs in it. Science also doesn't have followers, you equate it with religion without knowing what science is. No way could you be accused of being a scientist.

The scientific method is a method to weed out personal bias and belief, because scientists themselves are human beings and vary in such. They have to submit a hypothesis to be tested in a rigorous process of peer review until a consensus is reached as to whether it is an accurate describes a set of facts. Experiments have to be repeatable, observations have to be double checked, predictions tested and scientists, themselves being very competitive, love to have the opportunity to disprove their peers' hypothesis. If, however, the hypothesis is proven accurate, then good scientists accept it as the best explanation for the facts for right now. This is a type of majority rule, however, not like what you see it a democracy, but more like a meritocracy, the hypothesis wins when its merit is proven, otherwise its discarded.

And again, facts don't change themselves, not even in science, to give an example Newton's theory on gravity explained a lot, however it was flawed, even Newton knew this, it explained how the planets moved, except for one annoying planet, Mercury, its orbit couldn't be accurately predicted with Newton's theory, but at the time it was still the best theory out there, until, several hundred years later a new theory by a patent clerk came about that was able to accurately explain and predict, mathematically, Mercury's orbit. Of course, both theories are slightly more complicated than that, but the point is the fact that Mercury's orbit was peculiar didn't change, it was known in Newton's time to today, the theory to explain it came about relatively recently, pun intended.

Science has a huge advantage over pretty much anything other method we have of discovering anything about nature, and that is its self correcting, hypothesis are discarded, theories are replaced by better ones, all the time. That's the point of science, you are complaining that "science changes" when that is its very strength.

ON EDIT: Honestly, it seems like you didn't pay attention at all in High School science class.

You say I equate science with religion. Below is the first line in the body of my text in the post you responded to.

Quote:"Science and religion are completely different." No argument. Where "No argument." is my response to a quote from post 112. How does that say I equate religion with science? What scientific method did you use to come to that conclusion? Was it repeatable? You may want some peer reviews for that one.

Please do not take one post in a thread and then decide you know what is going on, not very scientific. Get all of the information possible, then make an educated decision.

As for my use of the word facts, please read post 26 which was the first post I was responding to where the poster mentioned the following: "There is only one objective set of facts in the universe and religious claims are either right or wrong. I submit that they are wrong and that the sooner people's beliefs (and therefore actions) are in line with reality, the less suffering there will be."

It is this I am responding to, the poster, Deep13, is stating that people should believe in the "only one objective set of facts in the universe". Do you agree with that? Do you think we know all of the facts of the universe? Do you know there are often many competing theories in science? Do you think he is stating a belief in science? I do, I equate his belief in science to a belief in religion.


Please read all posts in a thread before you decide some one doesn't know anything.

Do you also know at one time it was a fact that the sun went around the earth? Everybody knew it back in the day. Facts in science change when new information becomes available. I know I am equating facts with conventional wisdom, but for all intents and purposes there is no difference. It is often expressed as the "facts as we know them today". No such thing as an exact science. Google is your friend.

I did quite well in high school science, thanks for your concern. I also got a 4.0 in college Physics! Took a bunch of math classes too!

I disregarded the first sentence of your post as irrelevant when the one immediately after that contradicted it. And again with your misuse of the word fact. Look, I'm not really interested in debating what is a fact and what isn't with you. Why don't you learn what you are talking about first, BEFORE you debate it?

The first two sentences from the post in question are below.

"Science and religion are completely different." No argument.

The rigidity of some in the beliefs of science and religion make the followers quite similar in many cases. If a person is not open to new ideas or other opinions they are not being scientific they are following a belief.

The first line has me agreeing that science and religion are completely different.

The second line is comparing beliefs of followers of science and religion. It does not say science and religion are the same, I'm not even talking about science or religion, just that followers of each often exhibit common characteristics. I'm talking about people, different subject, hence the new paragraph. You do understand the reasoning for paragraphs, don't you? It further states that a person must be open to new ideas to be scientific.

The third sentence is below and is also the reason I will not respond to any more of your posts. Again, talking about people. I know the words science and religion are in the sentence, but I am talking about people, specifically their open or closed mindedness.

I don't like closed minds and I don't care if they follow science or religion, looks the same to me.

If you disagree with the following fourth paragraph from the post, well do some research. True some theories can probably be written in stone, but there are many competing theories on several scientific subjects. If you choose not to educate yourself at least try to make your spare time productive.

Science is often not based on fact but conventional wisdom, often majority rule, or even a popularity contest. Science has an inconvenient problem that the religious people use against it all the time, facts in science often change.

You seem so very sure when you say that. How do you back it up? :shrug:

--imm

Particularly when it comes to the supernatural and fantastic. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, nor leprechauns or fairies. But just because I can't prove they don't exist isn't evidence that they do. Same with gods.

There are people who are prejudiced against religious people. It is different.

http://www.myspace.com/108096269


Seems to be a strange chap. Under the impression that he is a goat. :)

If that's the kind of person we choose to be.

I can't prove there IS a god of one kind or another.
I can't prove there is NOT a god of one sort or another.

Therefore, I have nothing to say on the subject, and that includes passing judgement on another person's faith in the existence, or faith in the non-existence of god or gods.

What I can judge, in my own mind at least, is another person's overt behavior toward myself and others. Based on that I can choose to keep company with that person or not. As a general rule people who hold to either extreme are not pleasant to be around and so I avoid them. I really have better things to do with my time that keep company with unpleasant people. And that, too, is my right.

Frankly, instead of throwing up you hands and erroneously concluding that the truth of the matter is somehow beyond our comprehension, we could examine the evidence to see what the truth is. Either there is a god (or several) or there is not. Only one of those two conditions can be true. If there were a god, "his" presence should be obvious as his fingerprints would be everywhere. A universe with direction from a purposeful, controlling entity is a completely different place than one without that. Instead we have a universe filed with counter-indications. For instance, one of the properties god is supposed to have is to have created and directed the development of life on Earth. Yet, we know for an absolute fact that life is directed by purely environmental selection for survival or elimination of random mutations. God simply has nothing to do with it. We also know that the way people think causes us to infer purpose behind everything, including inanimate processes. And we know that the problem of theodicy has never been adequately answered. Add that to the fact that not a single particle of evidence for something that is supposed to be all-powerful and universal has ever been found despite some pretty well motivated searches. This, of course is not even an outline of reasons to conclude that there is no god, but a thumbnail sketch of an outline.

Now you suggest that there is something wrong with being critical of a person's specific faith. While having a vague idea that their might be some controlling, supernatural force in the universe is scientifically indefensible; the specific beliefs of actual religions are certifiably insane. Any objective reading of the foundational myths and ethical teachings of any religion reveal it to be the product of all too human needs. And being based on fantasy and wishful thinking, the teachings of those religions result in necessarily harmful thinking. Let me illustrate with an analogy. When driving your car, you drive where you believe the road is based on information provided by your senses. If your belief is accurate, you will drive safely to your destination. If you are mistaken about where the road is, you will at best drive off the road and at worst cause a fatal accident. Beliefs, values and ethics based on the existence of god is like driving where you think the road is and being wrong about it. The more dogmatically religious one is, the more likely he will drive off a cliff.

Non judgment is a purely religious value and one that I do not share. The fact that all religions are based in mutually exclusive myths makes makes a lie out of ecumenism and the idea that all beliefs are equally valid. They are not. Besides, why should these ideas alone among human thought be exempt from critical thinking and progress. Our understanding of the world and the universe has advanced tremendously since civilization began. It is silly to think our ideas about ethics and morality should not. We have to be willing to admit that the iron age lessons of our holy books are out-dated and destructive. Likewise, why continue to hold onto ancient ideas of how the universe works and protect them from criticism under the label of religion?

Frankly, you are confusing arguments posted on a website forum that specifically invites discussion on such arguments with everyday conversation or behavior. As a practical matter, I do not discuss religion with people unless someone else specifically wants to talk about it. I also do not know on doors trying to convert people and wish my religious neighbors were so considerate. And I do not demand tax breaks in order to facilitate lying and extorting people with promised of damnation. Finally, I do not give children nightmares about hell or abuse them on Earth while hiding behind the 1st Amendment. So I think your judgmental condemnation is a bit misplaced.

I respect your right to pretend certainty. If that makes you feel secure, comfortable, or superior, then by all means, go for it.

The Buddha once said something to the effect that there are few things in this world as annoying as people who have opinions. As to whether that's true or not, I have no opinion on the matter. ;)

As to whether some kind of god exists or not I have no opinion on the matter. Nor have I any inclination to form an opinion on the matter. I don't want to become one of those annoying people the Buddha spoke of.

You can't PROVE anything to a certainty, but I'm sure that doesn't stop you from wearying people with your opinions about them. You really don't understand anything about how knowledge is acquired and claims are evaluated, do you?

And I'm guessing you are 100% certain there is no real Santa Claus, even though you can't PROVE that, and despite massive evidence to the contrary.

I agree that neither postulate can be proven. I also heartily agree with your description of what extremists are like. Usually, they are the ones who refuse to respect anyone who disagrees with them.

BTW, are you by any chance related to Tater Salad?

in the OP--we might not agree on our beliefs, but everyone needs to be respected.

Any scientist whose mind cannot get by what science though a century ago has nothing to say worth hearing.

When 70% of PEOPLE - not just Xians - believe in a literally existing Devil in the US, and less than 3/10 believe in naturalistic evolution, how can you pretend enlightened religion is the norm, or indeed anything more than a tiny minority?

It's obviously very difficult for many liberal Christians to face the fact that they are a minority - sometimes a very very tiny one - within their own religion.

There is nothing more exciting than to view the birth of a new idea about science, religion, history or philosophy, etc. even if it is coming from a tiny minority. I could go back through history and find scores of examples in each of these fields. However progressive religion is not new. It has been a steady stream throughout all of Christian history.

who espouses a concept of god and religion shared by almost no one.

It is not a tiny minority. It is the stance in every major seminary and in all of the mainline churches, as well as in national and international council of churches.

of religion:

"Every major religion has as its root a concern for the earth, not some speculation about heaven."

"What we call God is the process in which the universe is continually being unfolded."

Now, please tell us what major seminaries teach these as fundamental concepts of god and religion. Catholic? Lutheran? Baptist? And tell us at what mainline churches these principles are preached on Sunday. How many councils of churches proclaim that God is a "process"?

Do you even remember saying these things, or are they just stuff you tossed out because it seemed warm, fuzzy and non-controversial at the moment, only to be replaced by a more convenient concept in the next thread?

Come on...tell us all about the major seminaries that teach that "god" is a "process".

... in whatever they want to"?

The right to believe as you wish does not include a right to never be challenged on the validity of your beliefs. The right to believe as you wish does not impose an obligation on others to provide you with a safe, secure cocoon where you get to remain blissfully insulated from criticism.

Am I protesting that anyone is trying to disarm me of my inherent rights when they merely voice criticism of my views?

He's getting long in the tooth for that anyway, and it'll make everybody happy.

...and stop threatening them with eternal damnation if they don't obey his rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I welcome and support the 'new' atheists. Secular society is under extreme threat from outright theocrats, and that threat is not going to be countered by hiding quietly and hoping it will all just pass over us.

Speak up. Confront superstitious idiocy. Defend and support a rational secular society.

Based on your post, I don't think you have. The criticisms you have come straight out of the theist reactions to what Dawkins et al have written - including their mischaracterizations and falsehoods.

I know why I lack a belief in gods, don't need to read about it. But even I know the OP is blowing hot air.

But that was enough to see that Richard Dawkins is far, FAR from the "rabid fundie atheist" that so many believers try to make him out to be, in order to discredit him. They do this (of course) because they can't counter his points, so they must attack the source.

are rather soft spoken and actually respectful in many ways, I know Dawkins is somewhat of a fan of the KJV Bible, if only as literature.

I mean they hold all the political power and will soon be banning religion and setting lions on Christians! GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Are they loud? Yes. Can they be obnoxious, yes. Do they have the right to air their opinions. HELL YES. You don't have to agree with everything they say (and I don't). But this kind of post is what I would expect to hear from the Religious right about how awful and DANGEROUS atheists are. Hell that bullshit is repeated here day after day. But you know what until new atheists start doing things like, trying to tell me and legislate how to do my jobs what jobs I can hold what I should do with MY body whom I should elect, I don't fucking care.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't fucking matter what the hell new atheists really say. THEY HAVE NO FUCKING POWER IN THE WORLD. All atheists are still the most hated group of Americans
But hey, thanks for echoing what people like Palin, Bachmann, Robertson, and others say, thats really really helpful.
And maybe you ought to read some of the science stuff Dawkins has written about the evolution of religion, he has a lot of good theory behind what he says...but of course, what would an evolutionary biologist know about evolution.:sarcasm:
I really really hate people who decide to criticize and discard stuff without actually having read what they are criticizing.

Please explain how an atheist would be fundamentalist. Use actual real definitions of the word, please, and not just your knee jerk reactions to people actually talking about their disbelief.

Because I get the distinct impression that's the term people are trying to avoid when they use "fundamentalist."

People use "fundamentalist" because it carries negative baggage with it that is related to religion and there is some really odd desire for theists to make atheism a religion.

Please do explain how any of the "new atheists" are fanattics (sic). Just because they actually talk about what they are thinking doesn't make them evil. Would you say that anyone who writes a book about religion is a fanattic?

I'm talking here about the "all religious people are crazy/deluded" crowd.

The ones who think religous istruction for children is chlld abuse and "something should be done about it"--something legal, presuably, since that's how child abuse is addressed.

The adolescent idiots who feel they prove something by sticking a nail through a communion host.

The ones who wholeheartedly adopt the S. Acharya/Zeitgeist woo-woo and preach it enthusiastically as any born-aginner, proving once again that Barnum was right.

The ones who claim martyrdom, despite the fact that there have been fewer hate crimes against atheists than any other minority group.

Talking about what one is thinking is almost always good. But these guys spend a whole lot more time talking about what they think other people are thinking--and they're usually wrong.

And just incidentally, I see no reason why I, as a woman, should give attention to anything at all a raving misogynist has to say.

atheism and anti-theism again. It pretty much makes your argument about "fanattic" and "fundamentalist" atheists fall flat.

And sheesh...do you ever stop playing the victim card?

Amazing how many times this pops up in R/T on a progressive discussion board.

happening.

With their book writing and talks and TV appearances and their fundamental adherence to ...uh...nothing. Everything is going according to plan.

Step 1: Write books.
Step 2: Put all religious people in death camps.
Step 3: ??????
Step 4: Profit!

bashing gay marriage.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20110724/D9OM9B300.html

Wait...what? Wrong group?

Those damn smug annoying nasty fundamentalist feminazis referred to in the ubiquitouis "well behaved women rarely make history" bumperstickers who actually dared to point out that sexism exists - not to mention those flaming nancy-boy Stonewall homos who dared to say being openly gay was not illegal. And of course those uppity darkies in the 1960s who had the simply unmitigated gall to point out that melanin content did not determine human equality. Were they just as bad as the entrenched majorities who wanted to keep them quiet and complaisant too? Did their actions or those of simpering Victorian trophy wives, repressed "bachelor uncles" and Uncle Toms do more good for the acceptance of those marginalized parts of society? Which model should atheists who actually care about the status of atheists as fully equal fully accepted citizens adopt?

that atheism has gotten more attention in the last 20 years (thanks, in part, to the so-called "New Atheists") than it had in 2000 years before that.

...and post a link here so I do not have to restate it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=196408&mesg_id=196408

Apparently, the difference between atheism and "new atheism" is that the old variety knows its place and shuts up about it.

Frankly, from where I sit, it's not about belief (or non-belief) systems at all. It's about the right of atheists to come out of the closet, sit in the front of the bus, and maybe even be elected to public office.

And that's all to the good.

Atheists have all those rights, as do theists. However, if you go around telling people that they are delusional because of their beliefs, don't be surprised when they don't vote for you.

Note: I believe in Murphy, the patron saint of electronic technicians. I KNOW he exists, because he manifests hie presence by blowing up my equipment every time I want to take a day off. Only a god would have a sense of humor like that.

Sorry if that is threatening to magical thinkers.

We are skeptics.

And if you are queer, be aware that you don't speak for all of us who are.

Definition for Queer: Differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal

The point is that the more Atheists speak out, the more
people realize just how many of us there are, and the
more people realize that they KNOW many of us.
So the "New Atheists" are performing the same function as
those people who carried the "We're Here, We're Queer" banners.

I don't presume to speak for all atheists, OR
gay and lesbians.

"We're here. We're queer." is an LGBT slogan. Don't feed me dictionary definitions. In that context "queer" means LGBT, and in any other context where you attempt to co-opt it, it's offensive.

If you want to perform the same function as those of us who carry the "We're here. We're queer" banners," get your own damn slogan. Surely, with all the vast intellectual power you claim for your demographic, you can think of one.

You're easily offended and rude.

for their rights. Damned right I'm offended by such boorishness.

which doesn't even make sense.

My lack of respect is not for "those who've put their lives on the line".

It is for you alone.

Carry on with your offended self!

:applause:

Y

Modern and post-modern religionists believe profoundly in evolution, not only in nature but also in thought. Any religion or irreligion that is stuck in history is already out of date. Many of us have also little use for the kind of religion these new atheists reject. Religious thought is not static. This means that the best of irreligion (which you define so well) and contemporary religious thought need to dialogue, not to cast rocks at each other.

believes there is a supernatural element to anything.

New Atheists frequently use words like "ridicule" and "hate", etc. in their conversation. Atheists freely state, or not, that they are not believers, and let it go at that. They might also criticize religion, which is not exempt from critique. Religious people do that regularly. Nor is atheism free from criticism. New Atheism condemns and ridicules.

That's the whole difference. We were fine as long as we just shut the fuck up and didn't make any waves.

I'm open and ready for critique. Seems most of the time, though, the bad new atheists are always made of straw and not a real commentary/critique on what I am saying.

Who is an example of an "old atheist"?

Maybe Carl Sagan, who wrote this:

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. " ?

distinguishing between Old atheists, New atheists, and Atheists:

OLD (pre-21st century)- many or most repressive, or violent and repressive.

NEW theists - generally condone ridicule of religion and religious, and hatred at times, potential for violence, little or no toleration.

Atheists - live-let-live, sometimes critical of religion, (which is fully warranted and necessary at times), overall tolerant.

MOST atheists pre-21st century were repressive and violent? Wow. All I have to say.

Exactly where do you get the "potential for violence" in new atheists? I mean, yeah, if I saw Dawkins in an alley, I'd be scared shitless.

New Atheists just don't shrink into the corner and cry "uncle."

It's about time we advocated for ourselves, especially since you guys won't

He can be mean - granted that is why so many of us Atheists love him. It's turnabout and fair play, after all.

But Dawkins?

I'm sorry - if you think he's mean and arrogant, then you have too thin of skin. He merely presents the truth, in a sincere, humble and excruciatingly polite manner - and if you don't agree with him, he will cite study after study of why your disagreement is false. He doesn't resort to name calling, or beat downs.

I will say that it was unexpected.

Hitchens is just a loud-mouthed drunk. The one thing for which I respect him is his willingness to endure waterboarding and change his mind about torture on the basis of that experience.

for judging the strength of people's arguments and evidence. The likelihood that any fact-based proposition is true depends not one bit on the attitude, personality or demeanor of the person making it. Nor on whether they have a problem with alcohol. You know all that, but apparently you've just been dying to use the phrase "raving misogynist" in a sentence for too long.

That whole elevator fracas all stemmed from a lack of empathy on his part, and by men in general

HOWEVER, when he debates religionists, he is always extremely polite - really has nothing to do with his misogynists statements

it's rather strange that he would be on the side of Muslim women instead of men in deeply misogynistic cultures.

I don't think those four guys are trying to take away people's rights. I think they are expressing their own opinions on the subject of religion.

Big difference.

of religion in the home to those under 16 - very "old atheistic" of him. Hitchens - "ridicule, hatred, contempt" for religion, etc.

I don't care if Hitches ridicules religious people, that is what comedians do.

do it in a comical context. As for Dawkins:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/dawkins_and_the_religion_petit.php Countless other articles concerning it.

Dawkins did support a ban on religious education for those under 16, and then he changed his mind.

I wanted to see the evidence offered, but the destinations of the links have been moved, and I am not sure what to search for. I did a google search containing the text of the petition, but only some blogs came up.

Let's assume Dawknins did agree, and then disagreed with the petition as the link claims. Does that still mean "new atheists" can be honestly said to hold that opinion. Wouldn't that be similar to saying Christians are white supremacists?

Nowhere did I say all new atheists think like "the Borg."

recently.

Unless you mean the Dawkins petition thing.

"...ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion might be considered radical by some. Hate speech often is.

Any way to extrapolate that to something representative of new atheists as a whole. I realize you have some severe hatred for Hitchens. I can understand that; he can be a prick sometimes. But it seems you want to cut the forest down because of one sickly tree.

That's the test, my friends. Picks out the gnu atheists like a magnet picks out paperclips.

Notice the extreme focus on Muslims - the perpetuation of demeaning and dehumanizing stereotypes.

I'd love to see a vibrant atheist/agnostic movement that would spur thought-provoking, vibrant debate. New Atheism is something else. Something truly malignant.

I also agree with all the thoughts expressed in the OP - well said.

on Christianity, if you hadn't noticed. And when fundamentalist Islam and all that it entails controls entire countries, then I'd say that merits attention as well.

And what sort of vibrant, thought-provoking debate would you like to have about a church that protects and enables child rapists? Or that regards homosexuals as an abomination, deserving of death? Or that encourages the submission and subjugation of women to men?

I suspect that your idea of a "vibrant, thought-provoking debate" is one where no one and no idea is ever wrong, no one is ever offended, no belief or behavior is ever condemned, and nonsense can never be called what it is. I'll pass, thanks.

If you really wanted to back up that claim, you might try actually reading the writers you're talking about, and getting your evidence there, instead of citing someone else's cherry-picked version of only one of them.

But then, I expected as much (or, I should say, as little).

I have read some of the writings of the authors in question, so I'm using their own words to form my opinion. I've read, for example, Sam Harris' articles supporting torture, racial profiling and preemptive war. Made me want to vomit.

Do you support those things too?

there was nothing to waste more words on. If you've read Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Hitchens and Dennett in any depth (as opposed to just cherry-picking and parroting what others have written about their writings), and still claim that they devote far more attention to Islam than to Christianity, then you're either very dense, or very dishonest. If you want deflect the discussion to other aspects of their writings than whether they are "largely" anti-terrorist propaganda, that's your business, but that's just you ducking my actual response to your claim.

Their message is nothing if not consistent.

I never said they don't spend considerable time ranting about Christians. But it always eventually comes back around to Muslims being the "ultimate evil", to be reviled and feared above all others. There's really very little difference between Richard Dawkins and Pamela Geller at this point.

I don't suppose it matters to you that their portrayal of Muslims is highly distorted and inaccurate? Maybe if you got your information from another source besides New Atheists (or other right-wingers, which is what they are), you'd have more perspective. Why would you think you'd get accurate information about Muslims from a group trying to teach you to hate and fear Muslims? Put on your critical thinking cap...

Btw, I don't suppose you're going to answer my question about Sam Harris. Do you support his positions on torture, racial profiling and preemptive war?

To quote: "New Atheism is largely War-on-Terror propaganda", and that doesn't even factor in anything you might regard as legitimate criticism of Islamic fundamentalism. But now you're backpedaling like crazy from what was obviously (to everyone but you) a ridiculous claim to begin with. What a shock.

And no, I don't agree with everything Harris wrote in Letter to a Muslim Nation....oh...wait..

Btw, are you ever going to answer my questions about what kind of vibrant debate you'd like to have about the shielding and abetting of child rapists? I'm sure you must think there is a lot to discuss on that issue.

I'm sorry you're having trouble following. I said New Atheism is largely War-on-Terror propaganda and that is exactly what I meant. No backpedaling. Christian-bashing is the honeypot, given that so many people are understandably disgusted and weary of the pernicious influence of the religious right (if all Christians get swept up in that criticism, no matter to the New Atheists - they're not interested in being fair). The point, that is, the true agenda of New Atheism, IMO, is creating Islamophobia and propping up the War on Terror.

If I'm so wrong, why do you find yourself backing away from Sam Harris' reactionary positions?

Indeed, the crimes of the Catholic Church are vile beyond words and if it were up to me, I'd strip them of every cent and prosecute all complicit individuals to the fullest extent of the law (starting with the Pope). When you consider that, along with the Catholic Church's role in the spread of AIDS, how is it they escaped being designated the "ultimate evil"? Instead, Richard Dawkins calls them "a bulwark against something worse". Smell something rotten? I do!

Well, actually no...that was a pretty shitty try. You've cherry picked a few statements by Harris, and tried to use those to paint all of so-called "New Atheism" as being "largely War on Terror propaganda". That's not even the majority of what Harris writes about, and you conspicuously fail to cite anything showing that the majority of what people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, Dennett and Myers have written regarding religion is unfounded and unjustified bashing of Islam. So what exactly did you mean by "largely"? 70%? 80%?

And I never advocated any of Harris' positions, so I can hardly be "backing away" from them, now can I? That you would need to resort to such lame and transparent intellectual dishonesty tells me pretty much all I need to know about the bankrupcy of your arguments.

Thanks for playing, though. We'll have some lovely parting gifts for you.

I realize New Atheism preaches belligerence, but you should realize that rudeness does not disguise the holes in your argument. Whatever your argument may be, that is, because from where I sit it seems to consist of nothing more than nonsensical attempts at evasion and inappropriate use of the term "cherry picked".

when your arguments are shown to be factually bankrupt, you resort to the tone argument. Yawn. Again. Blather on if it makes you happy, but you won't be convincing anyone with working gray matter.

as indeed I tend to dislike the term New anything. Generally, it either means 'Not at all any more' as in 'New Labour'; or something very old that people are trying to present as a new feature of evil modern life as in 'The new antisemitism' (nothing new about antisemitism!)

New Atheism seems to mean 'ideological promotion of atheism'. This is not new. People have promoted atheism for a long time, as they have promoted any ideology for a long time. So long as it's confined to argument and debate it may be boring to those who are not interested, but it is part of living in a free society.

Some atheists are intolerant and bigoted about non-atheists, but this is also not new, nor is it different from any other ideology in this respect. I have seen as much bigotry and intolerance between those who support different methods of education, e.g. 'Synthetic phonics' vs 'Analytic phonics' vs 'Real books' as in any other context! And as regards intolerance toward religious people, far more comes from members of other religions, or even other sects of the same religion, than from atheists.


'as long as they don't try to make their beliefs the beliefs of a country, try to teach hare-brained ideas to children that cripple their fruitful brains, or harm anyone, I could give a rat's ass as to what someone believes.'

I fully agree! But I think that many so-called 'new Atheists' are reacting against those who *do* seek to make their beliefs the beliefs of a country, or who use their beliefs to impose right-wing ideas and values. I don't care what anyone believes, so long as they don't use it in the cause of harshness, violence, oppression, or to make my country/ other countries/ the world any more right-wing than they are already.

As I have said, people tend to use their religion in the cause of attitudes that they already have, good or bad, peace or war, left or right. A strongly Christian politician, for example, may be an Ian Paisley or a Bruce Kent; a Pat Robertson or a Martin Luther King; a Martin Ssempa or a Desmond Tutu. I have no problem with people of any religion at all, or none. I do have problems with the seemingly increasing number of people who are right-wing political anti-secularists; who hate atheists and secularists because they are seen as a threat to old-fashioned morality and established power and helping women and minority group members get too uppitty! I might have called these 'The New Religious Right', but then I re-read Canning's 'New Morality' published in 1798:

'Guard we but our own hearts; with constant view
To ancient morals, ancient manners true,
True to the manlier virtues, such as nerved
Our fathers' breasts and this proud Isle preserved
For many a rugged age: - and scorn the while,
Each philosophic atheist's specious guile -
The soft seductions, the refinements nice.
Of gay morality and easy vice...'


So, just as 'philosophic atheists' were around over 200 years ago, so were the not New, but very Old Religious Right. And it is the Right, in all its forms, to which I object!

I'm afraid that I am not familiar with the subject. I have read some of Hitchens' columns in our local paper, and they were definitely thought-provoking, to say the least. However, nowhere in there did I find advocacy of violence toward, or legal sanctioning of, any religion. Like I said, though, I really don't know enough to argue yea or nay.

I'll try to find copies of some of these books and read them myself - much better than depending on others to make up my mind for me...