When atheists go too far

steddyeddy · 10-06-2011 5:21pm #1

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

Sanjuro · 10-06-2011 5:22pm

Despite agreeing with pretty much the majority of what Dawkins has to say, I do see him as an atheist troll. He's no better than any fundamentalist. But he's a fundamentalist without a god.

Chuck Stone · 10-06-2011 5:23pm

Fair play to him.

ChunkyLover_53 · 10-06-2011 5:24pm

If he carries on preaching like that he'll be crucified by the Romans

Elliemental · 10-06-2011 5:24pm

I think Dawkins is simply repaying the fundamentalists in like kind. For years, Atheists have had to put and shut up, now he's providing a longed for voice for a rapidly growing section of society. I applaud him for it.

iamstop · 10-06-2011 5:25pm

I have no problem ridiculing idiots who's beliefs cause harm or hurt to others or hinder progression.

Turtwig · 10-06-2011 5:25pm

Is it wrong to mock people's favourite political party or politician, or football club?

Dawkins isn't saying religious people are stupid or wrong, he's arguing their ideas/beliefs are wrong or stupid. That's quite a difference.

smokedeels · 10-06-2011 5:25pm

yeah... but.... there's still no God, so....

Dravokivich · 10-06-2011 5:25pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

That may be true, but that doesn't stop some people from being agressive about thier beliefs (regardless of what it is they believe).

steddyeddy · 10-06-2011 5:26pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fair play to him.

He once suggested a name for atheists should be "bright people" as opposed to not bright people. He seems to have a major problem. Not only that he attacks one religion more than another which shows bias towards the church of england.

Forest Master · 10-06-2011 5:27pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

There's a difference between ridiculing and being intolerant. I ridicule religious people because I think they're gullible - but I'm not intolerant of them. You're exaggerating for effect.

fedor.2. · 10-06-2011 5:27pm

He'll be sorry when he's in hell

Logical Fallacy · 10-06-2011 5:27pm

I don't mind ridiculing old **** who have embraced controversy to sell a few more copies of his latest book.

steddyeddy · 10-06-2011 5:27pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

That may be true, but that doesn't stop some people from being agressive about thier beliefs (regardless of what it is they believe).

But does that make it right that dawkins does it?

Saila · 10-06-2011 5:28pm

isnt it kind of Ironic rediculing all beliefs yet loads of people 'believe' him

:pac:

Logical Fallacy · 10-06-2011 5:28pm

iamstop wrote: »

I have no problem ridiculing idiots who's beliefs cause harm or hurt to others or hinder progression.

Beliefs can't cause harm, only actions.

steddyeddy · 10-06-2011 5:28pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Is it wrong to mock people's favourite political party or politician, or football club?

Dawkins isn't saying religious people are stupid or wrong, he's arguing their ideas/beliefs are wrong or stupid. That's quite a difference.

Actually he suggested a new name for atheists be "bright people". He actually does say their wrong and implies their stupid thats my problem with him.

Chuck Stone · 10-06-2011 5:30pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

He once suggested a name for atheists should be "bright people" as opposed to not bright people. He seems to have a major problem. Not only that he attacks one religion more than another which shows bias towards the church of england.

Well seeing as immeasurably evil acts have been carried out in the name of religion then I think the man has a point.

Religion will allow normally moral people do dispicable things.

Elliemental · 10-06-2011 5:30pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Beliefs can't cause harm, only actions.

But those actions are inextricably linked to the beliefs.

KnifeWRENCH · 10-06-2011 5:31pm

I despise militant atheism. I'm an apatheist myself but I don't need to ridicule Christians or Muslims to make myself feel better. I might think it's ridiculous in my mind but I won't force that view on people.

I don't think Dawkins is too bad, actually; he's certainly arrogant but he's tolerable. "I don't call people idiots but I do think people's views are idiotic" - that's a fair enough viewpoint to hold. Now I wouldn't go out of my way to spread that message like he does but I definitely agree with his point about indoctrinating children.

So Dawkins is ok in my book. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, is an insufferable asshole and represents, much moreso than Dawkins, what is wrong with militant atheism.

pragmatic1 · 10-06-2011 5:31pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://politico.ie/social-issues/science-tech/7573-richard-dawkins-interview-world-atheist-convention

Dawkins said he doesnt mind ridiculing other people's beleifs. Im an agnostic but I really dont see the point in constantly maintianing that anyone witha different view of the world to mine is stupid or wrong. Am I missing out on something here If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

When peoples beliefs have a negative impact on the world, I think its very important to challenge them.

minidazzler · 10-06-2011 5:31pm

I'd agree on alot of his points, I am absolutely disgusted that people in this country still subscribe to catholic doctrine, I am simply not friends with people who preach it, and I never would be. I feel the similar for most religions, but I have no tolerance for catholicism from the pope right down to the pensioner giving her euro a week to one of the most evil organisations in history.

mikemac · 10-06-2011 5:31pm

He will have plenty of time to reflect on this when he suffers in hell

sensibleken · 10-06-2011 5:33pm

Religion is comedy gold. who wouldnt mock it. If people say rediclous things theyre going to be ridiculed.

Turtwig · 10-06-2011 5:33pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually he suggested a new name for atheists be "bright people". He actually does say their wrong and implies their stupid thats my problem with him.

Idiotic name of the "The Brights" aside. He says no such thing. The implication that they're stupid is purely one that you are making of your own. Look at how much respect he shows for this Catholic Priest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

Even Kevin Myers disagrees with you, lol.

iamstop · 10-06-2011 5:34pm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Beliefs can't cause harm, only actions.

Ugh, semantics. It's the beliefs that lead to the actions, or inactions that cause harm. Jehovah's not allowing life saving transplants, catholics following the church and not using contraception resulting in unwanted births and diseases etc

Forest Master · 10-06-2011 5:34pm

Saila wrote: »

isnt it kind of Ironic rediculing all beliefs yet loads of people 'believe' him

:pac:

That makes no sense.

amacachi · 10-06-2011 5:34pm

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I despise militant atheism. I'm an apatheist myself but I don't need to ridicule Christians or Muslims to make myself feel better. I might think it's ridiculous in my mind but I won't force that view on people.

Are militant atheists the ones who scream Allah Ackbar when they blow themselves up or the ones who blow up abortion clinics? A completely BS term invented by people like you so you can feel better than at least one group of people.

dvpower · 10-06-2011 5:37pm

Not another atheist bashing thread...

FTGFOP · 10-06-2011 5:37pm

I knew of him only as a science writer until Creationism started to be taken seriously in the US. I see his current role as an inevitable response to the rise of Creationism.

steddyeddy · 10-06-2011 5:39pm

I agree if a religion does or says something which will cause harm it absolutely needs to be tackled but my problem would be criticising people who do no harm to me, others or themselves through their beleifs I have no desire to crticise how they live their lives.

iamstop · 10-06-2011 5:40pm

dvpower wrote: »

Not another atheist bashing thread...

It is interesting how people (non atheists) have to group together a bunch of people who are completely independent of one another. I've claimed atheism for over 10 years now, never once have I been to an atheist meeting or discussion group. I couldn't give a monkey's what other atheist think or feel regarding being atheist.

Seachmall · 10-06-2011 5:42pm

FTGFOP wrote: »

I knew of him only as a science writer until Creationism started to be taken seriously in the US. I see his current role as an inevitable response to the rise of Creationism.

Same here.

I agree with most of his points however I don't like the fact people seem to think he represents atheists (as if that's even possible). When people I've just met hear I'm an atheist I can see their eyes flicker to images of Dawkins.

squod · 10-06-2011 5:43pm

amacachi wrote: »

Are militant atheists the ones who scream Allah Ackbar when they blow themselves up or the ones who blow up abortion clinics? A completely BS term invented by people like you so you can feel better than at least one group of people.

Won't be long until pigs evolve wings and we can train them into becoming little pork bombers. Until then I'll be a monkey's uncle if anyone can convince me I'm a monkey's eh.... relative.

Elliemental · 10-06-2011 5:43pm

sensibleken wrote: »

Religion is comedy gold. who wouldnt mock it. If people say rediclous things theyre going to be ridiculed.

Ahh! George Carlin was a comedy genius. His "Religion is Bull****" routine was just exquisite. How I miss that old guy!

iamstop · 10-06-2011 5:43pm

FTGFOP wrote: »

I knew of him only as a science writer until Creationism started to be taken seriously in the US. I see his current role as an inevitable response to the rise of Creationism.

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. I know that is cliche but seriously, how wrong and backwards would it be if in 100 or 200 years time creationism was the general consensus?

biko · 10-06-2011 5:44pm

http://www.godlessgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/85.jpg

Militant Atheism hasn't killed anyone, Christianity and Islam has killed thousands.

Elliemental · 10-06-2011 5:48pm

Here it is, enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

KnifeWRENCH · 10-06-2011 5:48pm

amacachi wrote: »

Are militant atheists the ones who scream Allah Ackbar when they blow themselves up or the ones who blow up abortion clinics? A completely BS term invented by people like you so you can feel better than at least one group of people.

:rolleyes:
And this a completely BS post so I have no idea why I'm even bothering to respond to it, but I'm bored so I'll take the bait.

Did I ever say I approved of religious fundamentalism? Eh, no.
I dislike atheists who actively seek out to ridicule religious people and not just ridicule their beliefs. Say what you want about the Ayatollah or paedophile priests or whatever, but there are plenty of decent religious people in this world; what's to gain by insulting them and making them out to be inferior?

And you know full well what militant atheism is, so don't try and feign ignorance by pretending you didn't know exactly what I meant just so you could come and improve your thankscount here by making me out to be some sort of religious fundamentalist sympathiser.

And "people like me"? That deserves another :rolleyes:. And I don't feel like I'm better than anyone else, unlike Hitchens and many of his fanboys.
I'm not tarring all atheists with the same brush, just referring to a small subset of them.

Chuck Stone · 10-06-2011 5:48pm

Christopher Hitchens on mutilating children for Gods.

I highly recommend this as it's quite jarring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTS6iVpSPI

wild_cat · 10-06-2011 5:50pm

squod wrote: »

Won't be long until pigs evolve wings and we can train them into becoming little pork bombers. Until then I'll be a monkey's uncle if anyone can convince me I'm a monkey's eh.... relative.

Your a creationist?

I'm just going to leave this thread right now!

TwoShedsJackson · 10-06-2011 5:51pm

http://mwillett.org/atheism/no-disrespect.htm

Your religious beliefs do not deserve special respect simply because they are religious and/or strongly held.

Seachmall · 10-06-2011 5:52pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I agree if a religion does or says something which will cause harm it absolutely needs to be tackled but my problem would be criticising people who do no harm to me, others or themselves through their beleifs I have no desire to crticise how they live their lives.

The issue with beliefs as rigorous as religious ones tend to be is that they're rarely open to debate. People vote based on their beliefs but if they aren't willing to debate those beliefs it causes troubles and restricts advancements.

I've never come across any religious person who has tried to force their beliefs down my throat but I'm come across plenty that hold, and vote based on, beliefs on various topics so tightly they refuse to acknowledge any arguments against them.

Of course this problem isn't exclusive to religious beliefs but it generally doesn't help the matter when someone believes their opinion is God's opinion.

Note: when I say "Religion" I'm referring to organised religion, I know a few believers who don't follow a particular religion and are more than open to debate on all topics.

Logical Fallacy · 10-06-2011 5:56pm

Elliemental wrote: »

But those actions are inextricably linked to the beliefs.

So? Are we to then assume that all bad actions are linked to religious beliefs? People who don't believe in any god kill and rape and steal.

The only thing that is important is that they do these things, i don't give a **** about why.

If someone wants to believe the Universes was shat out by a Cosmic Iguana...let them...if they kill someone because they think that...then yeah, deal with them for their actions, not their beliefs.

iamstop · 10-06-2011 5:57pm

I have to go now but I'll close with this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uOQx9DxV8Y4/TJ2LofS5XBI/AAAAAAAAARk/sGApVze_Hg8/s1600/atheist_joke_card-p137872713349332234q6k5_400.jpg

Craebear · 10-06-2011 5:57pm

Does the ordinary "persecuted" christian have any problem mocking scientology? I bet they wouldn't have to think twice about it.

On the bat**** crazy meter scientology and christianity both share a 10/10. So christians, if you insist of believing this utter tripe don't expect any respect for it because in my book, you're ****in' mental.

*same goes for all religion*

Dravokivich · 10-06-2011 5:57pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

But does that make it right that dawkins does it?

anyone taking a stance similar to the example you provided, are always right as far as they are concerned and will agressively pursue that. i didn't condone what he did, as i also said "regardless of their beliefs." that was intended to include dawkins.

Logical Fallacy · 10-06-2011 6:01pm

iamstop wrote: »

Ugh, semantics. It's the beliefs that lead to the actions, or inactions that cause harm. Jehovah's not allowing life saving transplants, catholics following the church and not using contraception resulting in unwanted births and diseases etc

But i pretty much guarantee you are not naive enough to think that if there had never been a religion throughout the history of man, or if we woke up tomorrow and it was all done away with that we would all be sitting around holding hands and living in peace and harmony.

People who want to be ***** will be *****, they'll find a reason to do what they do regardless.

amacachi · 10-06-2011 6:01pm

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Did I ever say I approved of religious fundamentalism? Eh, no.

Did I say you did? You know perfectly well why I said it, it's a term which is meant to mirror militant religionists.

I dislike atheists who actively seek out to ridicule religious people and not just ridicule their beliefs. Say what you want about the Ayatollah or paedophile priests or whatever, but there are plenty of decent religious people in this world; what's to gain by insulting them and making them out to be inferior?

You still haven't said what militant atheism is in your eyes. Is it just people who are dicks about it? If so it's a very slightly overly loaded term no?

And you know full well what militant atheism is, so don't try and feign ignorance by pretending you didn't know exactly what I meant just so you could come and improve your thankscount here by making me out to be some sort of religious fundamentalist sympathiser.

As I said, you know fullwell that it's a term purely used to try to paint atheists as boogeymen when no such thing exists.

And "people like me"? That deserves another :rolleyes:. And I don't feel like I'm better than anyone else, unlike Hitchens and many of his fanboys.
I'm not tarring all atheists with the same brush, just referring to a small subset of them.

Gonna have to get loads of ice, two burns for the price of one! The only reason why many atheists are objecting to other atheists who dare to roll their eyes at mysticism is because they know they can object to that and feel better than if they objected to religion because they're just oh so liberal. I don't object to people believing what they want, however I reserve the right to criticise their beliefs and when their beliefs deserve ridicule I'll do it if I feel like it.

Logical Fallacy · 10-06-2011 6:02pm

iamstop wrote: »

I have to go now but I'll close with this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uOQx9DxV8Y4/TJ2LofS5XBI/AAAAAAAAARk/sGApVze_Hg8/s1600/atheist_joke_card-p137872713349332234q6k5_400.jpg

Ah jpegs, internet discussion would suck without them.

Dravokivich · 10-06-2011 6:04pm

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I don't think Dawkins is too bad, actually; he's certainly arrogant but he's tolerable. "I don't call people idiots but I do think people's views are idiotic" - that's a fair enough viewpoint to hold. Now I wouldn't go out of my way to spread that message like he does but I definitely agree with his point about indoctrinating children.

that would be on par with blurting out an insult aimed at someone who is fat. er, no sorry, commenting on their phsyique and the lack of responibilty they've had for themselves...

:rollseyes:

When atheists go too far

Comments