Richard Dawkins' "Out Campaign"

[fnr]

Richard Dawkins, noted scientist and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, has tried to turn his own personal brand of atheism into a movement. The web site is outcampaign.org/

Has anyone faced an “evangelical atheist” of the type Dawkins seems to be promoting? Not infrequently, I face people whose supposedly “scientific” worldview has made them feel more confident about their atheism.

Has there been a rise in one-on-one atheist evangelization?

 

[Mersenne]

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs. It’s a terrible double standard that Christians can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats. However, stating so much as disagreement with a Christian is deemed “offensive”

 

[tdgesq]

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs. It’s a terrible double standard that Christians can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats. However, stating so much as disagreement with a Christian is deemed “offensive”

Why should atheists be allowed to admit their beliefs publicly? How can an atheist tell anybody what should or should not be allowed in the arena of public belief?

 

[blessedtoo]

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs. It’s a terrible double standard that Christians can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats. However, stating so much as disagreement with a Christian is deemed “offensive”

May I point out the obvious?

We are Catholics on a Catholic forum basically discussing our concerns with one another.

You come onto this forum as someone who claims no religous affiliation.

Can you explain how Christians, at least in this instance, are throwing their religion in everyone’s face and shoving it down their throats?

 

[theAuthor]

Yes, I have come across such proselytising atheists. I got baited from a youtube vit to join a forum. I posted the “person” who posted the vid a PM (since youtube has a 50chr limit on comments). In fact, I received a message that my PM has been posted as the start of a threead on an atheist debate site.

Various “evangelisation” tactics were used there. The appeal to education was a big one, since the video was directed at college grads, logical thinkers, etc. So as a lone Christian you go in, defending your faith, and social pressure is exerted on you.

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs

This may be true, but many use his books, especially the God Delusion as the basis for their arguments. One nice chappy told me that because I am a Christian and religion is the cause of all wars (yadda, yadda), the world would be better off without me.

Feel free, anyone to PM me on this. I still go to that forum, but it’s not for the weak of faith or the scientifically illiterate, or the thin skinned. Lots of ad hominems there.

 

[theAuthor]

I saw a section of a debate between Dawkins and another Oxford grad (equally snooty accent and intellectuality, but a Christian) who gave Dawkins a real run for his money, yet Dawkins cut it from his doco. You could find it google video, but I have to put an angry toddler to bed.

 

[Palladio]

Dawkins is among a breed of really rather contemptible writers already dubbed The New Professional Atheists.

Anybody interested in this bunch should read Harvey Mansfield’s brief piece in the Weekly Standard and Peter Berkowitz’s article in the Wall Street Journal (also on Catholic Educators Resource Network).

Mansfield makes clear what I could see plainly since last spring: they attack not so much religion–which they do attack–as belief itself. It is a short step to attacking believers, I feel.

Berkowitz show how profitable belief bashing is.

I do think that England is ripe for the picking: state religion wears on many: Dawkins is seizing an opportunity which lost souls (and benighted minds) are already turning to with delight.

I do not think young Catholics should be exposed to any of the new professional atheists.

 

[theAuthor]

The atheists I have debated with and chatted to feel that they are forced to hide their atheism. tdesq’s comment above is astounding. Don’t you believe in free speech? In actual fact what is happening is that atheist are forming their own lobby group (power in numbers) to try and stave off what they see as a theocracy in the USA under Bush.

I think it is an indictment though on the intellectuality of the Catholic scholars to not publically take Dawkins and his ilk on. Such debates generally turn out to be “smart-alec” contests, but these people say they can refute St Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for good, that nature’s beauty and order points to a creator, etc. I’d like to see the Catholic intelligensia involved in public debate with these people. It could be a great opportunity to provide an intellectual basis for faith from our brightest minds.

The first step would be establishing the Gospels as recorded history, which mosts atheists deny.

 

[Palladio]

The atheists I have debated with and chatted to feel that they are forced to hide their atheism. tdesq’s comment above is astounding. Don’t you believe in free speech? In actual fact what is happening is that atheist are forming their own lobby group (power in numbers) to try and stave off what they see as a theocracy in the USA under Bush.

I think it is an indictment though on the intellectuality of the Catholic scholars to not publically take Dawkins and his ilk on. Such debates generally turn out to be “smart-alec” contests, but these people say they can refute St Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs for good, that nature’s beauty and order points to a creator, etc. I’d like to see the Catholic intelligensia involved in public debate with these people. It could be a great opportunity to provide an intellectual basis for faith from our brightest minds.

The first step would be establishing the Gospels as recorded history, which mosts atheists deny.

It’s already beginning in the high C of E, because this is more a movement in England than elsewhere: the theocracy thing is an English delusion–but a hard left propaganda piece, too, outside of the States–to stir things up even more.

For three months I debated English atheists on line, but they are lost in a gross culture of scienticism and materialism and they are mad as hornets at establishment religion.

The TLS gave Dawkins a much needed spanking in a recent issue.

First Things is the Amercan Catholic journal you would want to read for more: it regularly takes the new professional atheists to task.

So does the Right Reason blog.

God bless.

 

[theAuthor]

Hi, thanks for the info!

All the debating I do is on one forum, and most are from the US there with a spattering from other countries, so I may have gained the wrong impression, but I do know they are trying to become an organised group in the USA.

What is the TLS?

I find that being Catholic is a great help debating atheists, because it is heaps harder to debate someone who isn’t a sola scripturist. They can’t pin you down so easily to specific Bible verses, etc, and the Catholic Church has people like Raymond Brown who give rational explanations for many Scriptural things (eg the limited Scientific vocab of Moses), whereas a fundy must argue that all OT strories are literal.

Yes, so true about the scientism, and I am a scientist of sorts by trade (BAppSc). Such scientific principles as the reprodubility of experiments is ignored in favour of “we can’t do it yet, but we will”, a faith in science!

That’s where I’d like to see one of our highly trained philospher/theologians have a debate about epistemology with these people. Naturalism isn’t the only valid source or type of knowledge.

Thanks again.

 

[Palladio]

Hi, thanks for the info!

All the debating I do is on one forum, and most are from the US there with a spattering from other countries, so I may have gained the wrong impression, but I do know they are trying to become an organised group in the USA.

What is the TLS?

I find that being Catholic is a great help debating atheists, because it is heaps harder to debate someone who isn’t a sola scripturist. They can’t pin you down so easily to specific Bible verses, etc, and the Catholic Church has people like Raymond Brown who give rational explanations for many Scriptural things (eg the limited Scientific vocab of Moses), whereas a fundy must argue that all OT strories are literal.

Yes, so true about the scientism, and I am a scientist of sorts by trade (BAppSc). Such scientific principles as the reprodubility of experiments is ignored in favour of “we can’t do it yet, but we will”, a faith in science!

That’s where I’d like to see one of our highly trained philospher/theologians have a debate about epistemology with these people. Naturalism isn’t the only valid source or type of knowledge.

Thanks again.

I did not know they were organizing: their gripes cannot be those of their U. K. cousins, but they probably get a lot of wind in their sails from the hot rhetoric blowing across the Atlantic.

I was on the BBC religion and ethics boards: a near occasion for sin, so I resigned. I do not recommend it, although the programming I do recommend: you can get a ton on line.

TLS = Time Literary Supplement.

I agree: because they ‘bang on’ about Christianity already equated with ‘fundies’–gross, really gross, word–they are none too persuasive. I think anybody even moderately well informed about philosophy would have a hard time swallowing what Dawkins et al. are serving up. He is a philosophical, historical, and literary ignoremus.

God bless.

 

[Palladio]

OOPS: Times Literary Supplement

 

[Teflon93]

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs. It’s a terrible double standard that Christians can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats. However, stating so much as disagreement with a Christian is deemed “offensive”

Why not test your claims?

Walk into any government office (the DMV would do), stand up, and publicly profess your faith in Christ, and recite the Lord’s Prayer.

Watch closely the government officials.

Their reaction will put the lie to your claim that Christians “can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats.”

 

[Teflon93]

I personally think it’s a great idea.

The more time the Richard Dawkinses of the world spend out talking to real people and the less in the atheist bubble he inhabits the better for both. He won’t persuade any of us, but he won’t be able to persuade himself he’s in the majority or that everyone else is a bunch of idiots either.

 

[Palladio]

he’s not promoting evangelism, he’s just suggesting that maybe athiests should be at the very least allowed to admit their beliefs. It’s a terrible double standard that Christians can throw their religion in everyone’s face and shove it down their throats. However, stating so much as disagreement with a Christian is deemed “offensive”

What atheist in the U. S. is not allowed to admit his own atheism?

Atheism as such has nothing further to add: it must be the smallest of the isms, because once you have denied the existence of God, what more is there to say?

Atheists will sometimes pretend to know more than their unproven denial, but they are merely adding on whatever suits them: progressive Christians are atheists who simply like what Christ had to say, and they claim to follow Him.

Qua atheism, however, atheists are the last people on earth to complain about free speech, since they have so little to speak to in the first place.

Of course, they use the free speech tactic as a cover to bash belief and believers.

That’s where they have made a big mistake, as the constant stream of criticism directed against Dawkins et al. shows, but I do think they all need to be met, challenged, and defeated everywhere they overstep their dusty and barren little turf.

 

[theAuthor]

I personally think it’s a great idea.

The more time the Richard Dawkinses of the world spend out talking to real people and the less in the atheist bubble he inhabits the better for both. He won’t persuade any of us, but he won’t be able to persuade himself he’s in the majority or that everyone else is a bunch of idiots either.

Unfortunately his ideas and his wordsmithing abilities have lead many astray already. I don’t think you can deny that he is clever and asks some very tough questions. Atheists on forums are mostly former Christians who say they have deconverted or had their programming undone.

Most atheists are actually naturalist secular humaninsts. They will claim that morality doesn’t come from God eg that the golden rule did not originate with Jesus. And such that they can have all of the positive attributes (peace, joy, comfort, altruism, etc) and don’t need God to get them.

I agree with Teflon that Dawkins probably is surrounded by supportive followers. He is like a Christ to the atheists I have talked to. “Read his books” they insist, “then you’ll see the truth.”

 

[Palladio]

Unfortunately his ideas and his wordsmithing abilities have lead many astray already. I don’t think you can deny that he is clever and asks some very tough questions. Atheists on forums are mostly former Christians who say they have deconverted or had their programming undone.

Most atheists are actually naturalist secular humaninsts. They will claim that morality doesn’t come from God eg that the golden rule did not originate with Jesus. And such that they can have all of the positive attributes (peace, joy, comfort, altruism, etc) and don’t need God to get them.

I agree with Teflon that Dawkins probably is surrounded by supportive followers. He is like a Christ to the atheists I have talked to. “Read his books” they insist, “then you’ll see the truth.”

Agreed. But the “most atheists” claim gives atheists too much credit, I think. Anybody convinced, say, by D’s God Delusion would likely be so in inverse proportion to his learning or intelligence: the less learning and the less intelligent, the more likely to be ‘converted.’

That so many in England are unchurched despite (because of?) the C of E means atheism is a comfortable default position–which D’s book makes more comfortable by lending intellectual respectibility.

Besides the group or groups organizing in the U. S. you mention, what will happen to the new professional atheists (guess: one more profitable book, surely) here is a question. They’ll be absorbed in our big and diverse country.

I think that England is the powder keg of ‘Christendom,’ however. I suspect D knows this and adds both flame and fuel to create a big and profitable big bang sooner or later.

 

[Teflon93]

Unfortunately his ideas and his wordsmithing abilities have lead many astray already. I don’t think you can deny that he is clever and asks some very tough questions. Atheists on forums are mostly former Christians who say they have deconverted or had their programming undone.

Most atheists are actually naturalist secular humaninsts. They will claim that morality doesn’t come from God eg that the golden rule did not originate with Jesus. And such that they can have all of the positive attributes (peace, joy, comfort, altruism, etc) and don’t need God to get them.

I agree with Teflon that Dawkins probably is surrounded by supportive followers. He is like a Christ to the atheists I have talked to. “Read his books” they insist, “then you’ll see the truth.”

Sure—but let’s also consider the numbers. What are atheists now? 2% of Americans?

Are there any indications that Dawkins is birthing a cult that will become the dominant religion in this country?

Isn’t the problem rather that atheism is the state religion in much of the West, and will likely become so in America? Isn’t the creeping, intolerant bureaucracy the true danger here, rather than the rehashed, warmed-over, stale old arguments Dawkins repackages for cash?

 

[Mirdath]

EDIT: Whoops, this is Nepenthe posting! I didn’t realize Mirdath hadn’t logged out!

I don’t see anything on this site proselytizing – it’s not aimed at theists at all, as far as I can tell. Rather, it’s speaking to nontheists, encouraging us not to feel we must hide our disbelief. The tshirt design is ugly and tacky though.

Nontheists really are treated badly, very much so in the United States (here, by far most often by Christians). In the public school I attended in grades 1-4, I was denied school lunches, since I refused to pray along with my classmates during break. I was beaten by other children, treated as an object of scorn by teachers, and parents would not let me come over to play. Sometimes, adults would call me a ‘satanist’ – I was a second-grader, for crying out loud. And when I answered ‘don’t worry Mrs. Smith, I don’t believe in your god OR your devil,’ genuinely hoping that would make everything better…well, that went over even worse. I still don’t really know why.

Interestingly, only laypeople have mistreated me for being a nontheist – Catholic and Orthodox monks and nuns that I have known have always been wonderful friends and role models to me, both in the Catholic high school I attended and throughout my life. But I have lost three jobs for not loudly declaring Christianity (I simply told those bosses that I didn’t care to discuss matters of religion on the job; apparently that wasn’t good enough), and on this very board I have heard people say that atheists are worse than murderers or child molesters, or even subhuman, simply for lack of religious belief.

I agree, Dawkins can be rather grating in manner at times – sometimes he can be quite charming though, particularly when he’s relaxed and/or genuinely concentrating on a question, and he is certainly an excellent microbiologist. I preferred Carl Sagan’s sense of skeptical yet gentle and joyous wonderment, and find his outlook closer to my own.

Anyway, I do not ‘admit’ to nontheism – I profess it! Strong-agnosticism, to be precise. And I would think the Catholic members of this board would be just as upset by the idea of a theocratic US as anyone!

Those tshirts though — yecch.

 

[Nepenthe]

My apologies – the above post was mine, not Mirdath’s. So if anyone takes exception or agrees with anything said in it, please direct your comments at me, not Mirdath, okay?