I'm Right - New atheists say so

[minkymurph]

The title of this thread was designed to attract posters rather than actually confirm ‘I’m right.’
It’s not a case of ‘I’m right’ but my arguments are sound on the ground they are supported by new atheists.

I have consistently said not just on CAF but elsewhere, though perhaps not in the exact terms I will now state, the flaw I see in atheism is it does not offer - among other things a collective identity, community, and ‘common good.’ New atheists agree.

I have also said to atheists who state they desire to live in society where no one believes in God and has no need of religion they need to describe this vision of society and how it will function. To date no atheists I personally have engaged in discussion with has taken up this mantle. New atheists have and the good news is there’s a lot of Steven Kettell says in his article to which I could up to. The other good news is his proposals are not loaded with, 'I hate Christianity. ‘Religion is a social disease and should be eradicated’ and other synonymous endearing phrases meaning he is someone we who believe in God may potentially be able to do business with. The reason we would want to do business is to secure our objectives through incorporation within this theory should it gain acceptance, and it has the potential to gain acceptance.

The other good news is we theist’s get to critique to a greater extent and are relieved at least to a degree of constantly having to defend.

secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.al/

Exerts.

‘Moreover, new atheism has self-consciously adopted a discourse rooted in a language of group rights and demands for equal treatment. This has been fuelled, to a large degree, by a desire to establish a sense of explicitly ‘atheist’ identity, and, although the goal is not universally accepted (e.g. Grothe & Dacey, 2004; Namazie, 2011), to develop a greater notion of group membership, community and belonging (see e.g. Aronson, 2008; Cimino & Smith, 2007; 2011). As PZ Myers (2008) notes, “If this New Atheist movement…is to increase its ability to influence the culture, being able to recognize our essential unity as a community is essential”. “A fractured group of hermits and misfits”, he warns, “can not change the world”.’

'The broader dynamics of new atheism, including its political aims, organisation and strategies, particularly beyond the small number of high-profile authors who are typically taken to represent new atheism as a whole, remain largely unexplored. This omission is especially disconcerting since political activism is one of the hallmarks of new atheism itself. Comparing the huge discrepancies in the power and resources being commanded by atheism and religion in the United States, for example, Richard Dawkins (2007), probably the most well-known of all new atheists, makes the point abundantly clear, “[O]ur struggle”, he says, “is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.

I predict if new atheists came to power they would be faced with task of actually resolving issues as opposed to highlighting what they are, be compelled to make unpopular decisions, become incorporated into ‘the establishment’ and eventually become deeply unpopular with their electorate as Sinn Fein have in West Belfast, loosing out to ‘People before Profit’ in the last two elections - but that’s life and no reason why we should deny them the opportunity of showing us what they can do. Concerning my part of the world they would be hard pushed to do worse.

 

[minkymurph]

Addition

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/kettell/a-secularist-response/a_secularist_response_policy_briefing.pdf

 

[Bradski]

“New atheism is politically diverse, organisationally decentred and contains no consensus or uniformity of opinion on core strategic issues.”

Why, gee. Who would have thought.

Mr. Kettell is drawing a very long bow indeed by conflating politics and atheism. As Bismark said, politics is the art of the possible. That is, what can be done. What positive acts can one take to advance ones ideas of governance.

Atheism is simply (and I don’t know how many times I have to keep saying this), a lack of belief in gods.

There is simly no connection between the two.

However, a belief in a god seems to encourage some people to think that it entitles them to attempt to advance their religious beliefs in the form of political arguments. The reaction to that is not atheism, but secularism. Which simply denies them that right and insists on non-religious arguments.

We (atheists and secularists alike) do not deny you the right to your beliefs. And do not insist that all religious arguments are invalid. Just that they cannot stand alone and must be backed up with reasonable arguments and evidence.

And we (atheists and secularists alike) do not necessarily share the same political beliefs, so what we individually might argue for in opposition to any given religious person will vary. And in fact we might argue for the same things that a religious person might.

That said, I haven’t read the whole link yet.

 

[minkymurph]

“New atheism is politically diverse, organisationally decentred and contains no consensus or uniformity of opinion on core strategic issues.”

Why, gee. Who would have thought.

Mr. Kettell is drawing a very long bow indeed by conflating politics and atheism. As Bismark said, politics is the art of the possible.

Bismark was right - and interestingly he in fact done pretty well at it.

Atheism is simply (and I don’t know how many times I have to keep saying this), a lack of belief in gods.

There is simly no connection between the two.

Perhaps to you - but you have to admit ‘Religion is social disease that should be eradicated,’ ‘teaching children religion is tantamount to child abuse’ indicates a tad more than ‘I don’t believe in gods.’

However, a belief in a god seems to encourage some people to think that it entitles them to attempt to advance their religious beliefs in the form of political arguments. The reaction to that is not atheism, but secularism. Which simply denies them that right and insists on non-religious arguments.

We (atheists and secularists alike) do not deny you the right to your beliefs. And do not insist that all religious arguments are invalid. Just that they cannot stand alone and must be backed up with reasonable arguments and evidence.

That’s a fair comment - I could sign up to that.

And we (atheists and secularists alike) do not necessarily share the same political beliefs, so what we individually might argue for in opposition to any given religious person will vary. And in fact we might argue for the same things that a religious person might.

That said, I haven’t read the whole link yet.

There are things in it I wouldn’t agree with - I’m not sold on the idea yet. I just threw it out to see how it would be received.

The tide of secularism is also a reality and sooner or later we are going to have to business.

If life hands you lemons make lemonade.

 

[Vonsalza]

“New atheism is politically diverse, organisationally decentred and contains no consensus or uniformity of opinion on core strategic issues.”

Why, gee. Who would have thought.

Mr. Kettell is drawing a very long bow indeed by conflating politics and atheism. As Bismark said, politics is the art of the possible. That is, what can be done. What positive acts can one take to advance ones ideas of governance.

Atheism is simply (and I don’t know how many times I have to keep saying this), a lack of belief in gods.

There is simly no connection between the two.

However, a belief in a god seems to encourage some people to think that it entitles them to attempt to advance their religious beliefs in the form of political arguments. The reaction to that is not atheism, but secularism. Which simply denies them that right and insists on non-religious arguments.

We (atheists and secularists alike) do not deny you the right to your beliefs. And do not insist that all religious arguments are invalid. Just that they cannot stand alone and must be backed up with reasonable arguments and evidence.

And we (atheists and secularists alike) do not necessarily share the same political beliefs, so what we individually might argue for in opposition to any given religious person will vary. And in fact we might argue for the same things that a religious person might.

That said, I haven’t read the whole link yet.

The sin of reductionism at it’s finest, Mr. Bradski. :tiphat:

Religious systems provide personal meaning and social mores to it’s adherents - providing one of, if not the most important, products of common culture.

If atheism wishes to supplant religion as “the better way”, then it is obligated to provide those same derivatives of religious belief in a similar way.

So far, it hasn’t. To quite the contrary, it renders personal nihilism and the societal moral chaos of relativism.

The fundamental flaw in the Fool’s Errand of rationally arguing secular moral norms is that the result is only as authoritative as people perceive both the argument and litigants to be. The result can never be transcendent in the same way a god is.

So regardless what conclusion you draw, dissenters are still free to say “Go kick rocks”. Without some ultra-authoritative state to enforce your atheistic will, the best counter you have to dissent is to shake your fists in anger. The theist still has the working peace of “God will judge all”.

Segued, the notion that politics and religion have nothing to do with each other is comically absurd. The latter half of the twentieth century stands in firm rebuke of the notion. As it lacks a divine cop, the atheistic society absolutely requires a highly effective police-state as there is no reality of atheistic justice outside of it. The theistic society lacks this problem with anything approaching the same degree.

Yet more false reductionism from a relativist…

 

[Polycarp1]

There is no new atheism only old foolishness.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps to you - but you have to admit ‘Religion is social disease that should be eradicated,’ ‘teaching children religion is tantamount to child abuse’ indicates a tad more than ‘I don’t believe in gods.’

I guess attention-grabbing headlines are intended to polarize opinion, but in this case there seems to be a valid question behind them.

To what extent do we have the right to indoctrinate children? For instance suppose the neighbors tell your little girl that she must always submit to boys, or blood transfusions are evil, or that if she misbehaves she’ll burn in hell, or that people who go to another church are the anti-Christ?

Is that OK? Is it any different if they tell their own child such things? Any different if children are taught such things at school? I don’t know exactly where to draw the line, but I think most people would agree that some beliefs in some religions step over the line, and to that extent at least, we’re all secularists.

 

[Vonsalza]

The other-religious should be free to openly advocate their view and I should be free to vigorously counter. If you want to call that indoctrinating, then I’m fine with it.

For institutions with a public function - like public school - there should be no administrative support for ideas beyond reading, writing, arithmetic, the sciences and so on. But let the students discuss religion as they wish. I’ll lovingly debate my brood when they bring false ideas home - as is my right.

 

[edwest2]

As someone who watches what people actually do in the West, I’ve seen certain principles being enacted and then lived out by too many in the last 40 years. Chief among them:

1. Sex without marriage, regardless of the reason.
2. No children. For reasons other than medical issues.
3. No desire for commitment, especially regarding marriage.
4. The increased feeling that organized religion is (a) just going through the motions, (b) too restricting, or (c) no longer relevant.
5. Divorce - and I’m not referring to abuse - is the answer.
6. Abortion for whatever reason, and without carrying the baby to term so that the baby can be adopted, is the answer.

To be an atheist, no one has to sign anything or join any group. Of course, when the Catholic Church issues a document about a particular subject, called an encyclical, it includes all men of good will. Now, anyone of any religion or no religion can do good things. It wouldn’t matter to me if my coworker was an atheist as long as we got along. The issue is: I will say no if offered a drink, any illegal drug, including marijuana, and going to bars and strip clubs is right out. My coworkers know I will not go to see most movies and don’t watch much TV.

If atheists want to enter politics to effect change, that’s one thing, but we’ll see. There are other groups like humanists, freethinkers and others who are concerned about right wing/conservative/white anglo-saxon protestants in their government. As one book reviewer wrote on amazon: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

I read a piece in the New York Times by a liberal/progressive who confirmed liberal bias. In a nutshell, he wrote that ‘diversity’ does not include conservatives.

In the meantime, thanks to social fragmentation caused by a desire to be free to do almost anything, people live in isolation or tribal groups where they share common ground. On the other hand, there have been successful removals of “public” religious monuments and symbols that have, in some cases, been there for centuries. Out of sight, out of mind. And with the claim that this is to “protect” religious freedom. Very doubtful. All those monuments did not place themselves in places where they were later removed. Another example is a nearby town where shop owners would attach speakers to the outside of their stores to play Christmas music. Someone complained, and an order was issued: shop owners could play the music but without the words. Imagine Silent Night without the words.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps to you - but you have to admit ‘Religion is social disease that should be eradicated,’ ‘teaching children religion is tantamount to child abuse’ indicates a tad more than ‘I don’t believe in gods.’

Whoa, let’s back the truck up a little. Talk about getting in your retaliation first.

No-one has argued any of those points. And I’m pretty certain that no-one will in those terms.

I personally think that religion could not and should not be ‘eradicated’. I think of what it meant to my parents and there is no doubt that it brought them so much joy, comfort and a rock solid sense of community.

Each to his and her own I say. As long as we don’t threaten children with eternal damnation, teach them that the world is 6,000 years old or fly planes into buildings, then I have no problem with people believing whatever it is that gives them what they need in life.

 

[minkymurph]

Whoa, let’s back the truck up a little. Talk about getting in your retaliation first.

No-one has argued any of those points. And I’m pretty certain that no-one will in those terms.

I apologize - I should not have jumped in with the comments I made and you’re right to say we should back up the truck.

I admit that at present my judgement is coloured as I’ve been subjected to a particularly hard time from some that describe themselves as atheists. The comments I posted are not only quotes from atheist sites, they have posted on my timeline on facebook, been said to me personally and more, and people have even refused to speak to me when they find out I am Catholic and do some work in Catholic schools. Other comments include ‘Jesus was evil’ and the only thing Mother Theresa did for lepers was watch them die.

I apologize unreservedly if my comments arbitrarily inferred you or anyone else on the forums should automatically be categorized alongside people who say these things purely on the basis you describe yourself as an atheist.

I will ‘wind my neck in’ as they say in my part of the world.

I personally think that religion could not and should not be ‘eradicated’. I think of what it meant to my parents and there is no doubt that it brought them so much joy, comfort and a rock solid sense of community.

Each to his and her own I say. As long as we don’t threaten children with eternal damnation, teach them that the world is 6,000 years old or fly planes into buildings, then I have no problem with people believing whatever it is that gives them what they need in life.

Thx for this. :flowers:

 

[Bradski]

Shame on those who act in such a manner.

 

[edwest2]

A quote from from Bradski: “Each to his and her own I say.”

And not referring to Bradski in particular who I consider a civil individual, but to the West at large, I’m seeing too many examples of people who get what they need/want and - especially with regards to people they know or encounter - the situation turns into a separation. It need not be anything formal. It could just be: “This was good for a while but I’m just going to ignore, dissolve a relationship or leave a person for no better reason than ‘I don’t want to do this anymore.’” I heard that about why a relationship ended. Or casual encounters, no matter how intimate, that end shortly after they began.

Some people seem to have only one commitment that they’ll make: to a job. That’s it. Relatives and family, depending, maybe, and I’m not talking about abusive situations. Otherwise, just stay home and enjoy whatever. I know a guy who is a self-described anarchist. He’s very well read, makes astute observations and does interesting things, like drawing, but he has no friends.

Anarchy, to varying degrees, is the end result. There are no binding forces, just what millions of people want at any particular moment. Without a cohesive situation, communities and societies turn into ghost towns. We see people but we have no reason to engage them, except for a whim or other temporary urge. And then they disappear from our lives.

Ed

 

[inocente]

The other-religious should be free to openly advocate their view and I should be free to vigorously counter. If you want to call that indoctrinating, then I’m fine with it.

But I was talking of children. Even though someone is a devout member of the Taliban, ISIS, KKK, Westboro or Heaven’s Gate, it is far from self-evident that they have a right to indoctrinate six-year olds with their beliefs. The secularist who asks where is the line, which religious beliefs is it permissible to teach to children and which not, is raising a legitimate question.

 

[Bradski]

But I was talking of children. Even though someone is a devout member of the Taliban, ISIS, KKK, Westboro or Heaven’s Gate, it is far from self-evident that they have a right to indoctrinate six-year olds with their beliefs. The secularist who asks where is the line, which religious beliefs is it permissible to teach to children and which not, is raising a legitimate question.

I would suggest that it is not permissable to teach children that which is likely to harm them directly or would harm their relationship with others.

So we shouldn’t allow them to be taught that women are second class citizens, that killng homosexuals is acceptable, that God hates fags and aliens are amongst us. Or that they may be eternally tormented if they sin.

 

[tonyrey]

I would suggest that it is not permissable to teach children that which is likely to harm them directly or would harm their relationship with others.

So we shouldn’t allow them to be taught that women are second class citizens, that killng homosexuals is acceptable, that God hates fags and aliens are amongst us. Or that they may be eternally tormented if they sin.

Children should be taught that if they are selfish and live just for themselves they will become isolated from others and finish up by being lonely and miserable - which amounts to a hell on earth. In other words they should do their best to love others as they love themselves. They will indeed be tormented as the result of their own pride, vanity, greed, arrogance, impatience, cynicism, scepticism and lust for power.

 

[Bradski]

Children should be taught that if they are selfish and live just for themselves they will become isolated from others and finish up by being lonely and miserable - which amounts to a hell on earth. In other words they should do their best to love others as they love themselves.

Well said , Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

As someone who watches what people actually do in the West, I’ve seen certain principles being enacted and then lived out by too many in the last 40 years. Chief among them:

1. Sex without marriage, regardless of the reason.
2. No children. For reasons other than medical issues.
3. No desire for commitment, especially regarding marriage.
4. The increased feeling that organized religion is (a) just going through the motions, (b) too restricting, or (c) no longer relevant.
5. Divorce - and I’m not referring to abuse - is the answer.
6. Abortion for whatever reason, and without carrying the baby to term so that the baby can be adopted, is the answer.

To be an atheist, no one has to sign anything or join any group. Of course, when the Catholic Church issues a document about a particular subject, called an encyclical, it includes all men of good will. Now, anyone of any religion or no religion can do good things. It wouldn’t matter to me if my coworker was an atheist as long as we got along. The issue is: I will say no if offered a drink, any illegal drug, including marijuana, and going to bars and strip clubs is right out. My coworkers know I will not go to see most movies and don’t watch much TV.

If atheists want to enter politics to effect change, that’s one thing, but we’ll see. There are other groups like humanists, freethinkers and others who are concerned about right wing/conservative/white anglo-saxon protestants in their government. As one book reviewer wrote on amazon: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

I read a piece in the New York Times by a liberal/progressive who confirmed liberal bias. In a nutshell, he wrote that ‘diversity’ does not include conservatives.

In the meantime, thanks to social fragmentation caused by a desire to be free to do almost anything, people live in isolation or tribal groups where they share common ground. On the other hand, there have been successful removals of “public” religious monuments and symbols that have, in some cases, been there for centuries. Out of sight, out of mind. And with the claim that this is to “protect” religious freedom. Very doubtful. All those monuments did not place themselves in places where they were later removed. Another example is a nearby town where shop owners would attach speakers to the outside of their stores to play Christmas music. Someone complained, and an order was issued: shop owners could play the music but without the words. Imagine Silent Night without the words.

Ed

In the name of equality Christians in the UK are being compelled to tolerate unChristian practices in their workplace - like abortion - and even in their own house - sexual promiscuity…

 

[edwest2]

In the name of equality Christians in the UK are being compelled to tolerate unChristian practices in their workplace - like abortion - and even in their own house - sexual promiscuity…

Pray and continue to pray, and when you are led to speak, speak. At least one man became a saint because his mother kept praying for him. God is greater than all this.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

Well said , Tony.

Thanks, Brad. We’re not so far apart after all.