The Atheist Delusion

whatislife

Conor Kenny

Staff Writer

If the chief problem of religion is that it whips up tensions between different groups of people and disturbs peace, then Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the consummate hypocrites. The militant atheists of our generation are forever badgering people of faith, asking us to justify our own personal beliefs. Mr. Dawkins probably thinks that there’s a certain festive irony in him guest-editing the Christmas edition of the New Statesman, but many of us are beginning to grow weary. We get it, you don’t believe in God. Can you just leave the rest of us alone?


The debate over the existence of a higher being is a question that has been the bane of mankind for centuries, and it isn’t going to be resolved any time soon. And it certainly isn’t going to be answered by a flustered old bible basher who thinks it’s clever to compare the question of a divine creator with a child’s belief in fairies. It’s interesting to note how Dawkins, the supposed fearless and eloquent debater, metaphorically crapped himself when invited to debate Dr. William Lane Craig in Oxford a few months ago. Dawkins’ reason for declining the invitation was apparently that his prospective opponent had justified genocide (or in other words, read from the Old Testament). If you want to know the real reason why Dawkins declined the debate, I’d recommend watching a few clips of Craig debating Christopher Hitchens on Youtube at Balliol College, and observe how the erudite chain-smoking alcoholic gets verbally taken to the launderette.


The main problem with Dawkins seems to be that he was born into the wrong century. The man appears to long for an era where he would be persecuted for his beliefs, and perhaps thought of as some kind of martyr. Unfortunately for him, he lives and works in 21st century Britain, where the Churches are empty and there are hardly any religious people left in the country. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, the self-proclaimed “Four Horsemen”, however, seem to be fervently inspired by the old cliché that “religion is the cause of all the problems in the world”. It’s a rather grandiose, if somewhat dated claim. In reality, most of the conflicts around the world stem from problems of racism and land disputes, entirely separate from religion. For example, the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land. You’d also be hard pressed to find a UVF or IRA extremist in Ulster who genuinely believes in the doctrine of the religion they claim to belong to.


Sadly, it appears that Mr. Hitchens, suffering from oesophagus cancer, will not be with us for too much longer. It must infuriate him that several prominent Christians have publically stated that they are praying for him, but he can at least console himself with the knowledge that his peers are far from finished annoying the God he doesn’t believe in. Dawkins and the rest of the Bible bashing brigade are going to be with us for a while yet, so don’t expect peace any time soon.


http://www.universitytimes.ie/?p=7427


Personally I think it's a rather inflammotory, incredibly poor piece of journalism and wrong on so many points.


Thoughts?

just like to note that i did not write this article

Sarky

I think I'll head to the pub in a bit.

Edit:

Oh wait, I thought you'd written that and not Conor Kenny, it wasn't entirely clear.

Still, I think I'll head to the pub anyway, a good idea is a good idea. Before I go I'll agree with you, it's very poorly researched and written. nothing in there that hasn't been heard before. And lol at the William Laine Craig bit, frankly.

braintoxic

I was just on the throne tinking d same thing

MagicMarker

Is it 2007 again? It feels like I've read the same article dozens of times since TGD was published. The author could have at least tried to bring something new to the table.

Knasher

whatislife wrote: »

If the chief problem of religion is that it whips up tensions between different groups of people and disturbs peace.

I wouldn't say that is the chief problem, sure it is worrying but I think there are larger problems to worry about. My largest problem is that many people factor it into their decision making process and hence can reach faulty, and largely unassailable conclusions, that can have absolutely crippling effects on society.

A lot of seriously harmful beliefs are unfortunately based around religion and are therefore extremely hard to combat. The anti-vaxx movement, which has an entirely religious foundation, for example, is giving virii and disease a serious chance to evolve and overcome our defenses and sweep through our populations. There are diseases like polio which, if not for the religious getting in first and speaking against vaccination, would probably be eradicated in the world today.

Then there are things that religion inflicts mostly on the believers, things like genital mutilation, which should be completely indefensible but are defended on religious grounds.

The occasional war, while tragic, is one of the smaller ills that religion inflicts on the world.

Knasher

whatislife wrote: »

just like to note that i did not write this article

Might I suggest you put quote tags around it as well then, when I first saw it I thought it was yours. Thanks for the article, I think I might add my voice to the comments section on it.

Turtwig

Hey, this author actually refrained from, or at the very least simply did not, bastardise science. So in my book that makes his article several times better than the usual claptrap his brethren produces. A sign of progress, perhaps?


Might I suggest we refrain from commenting because if everyone comments on the original article the author will just be swamped and give up, possibly thinking even more negative comments about internet atheists.
(And yeah, I did comment, sorry couldn't resist.:o
*Puts on hypocrite coat*)

wylo

Article makes one decent point, humanity caused all the **** stuff that happened in the world, and this behaviour was not that often a result of a belief in god.

It was a result of greed and power cravings.
As a matter of fact, nationality, which lets not forget is nothing more than a human concept, has probably been the single core cause of most wars.

recedite

notbywhatislife wrote: »

For example, the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land.

God promised that land to the Jewish people, so it can't be an illegal occupation, can it?

wylo

recedite wrote: »

God promised that land to the Jewish people, so it can't be an illegal occupation, can it?

A convenient excuse, moreso than a belief Id imagine.

Sonics2k

recedite wrote: »

God promised that land to the Jewish people, so it can't be an illegal occupation, can it?

Tell you what, why don't you head into the Gaza strip and explain that to them.

I'll be alerting your loved ones in the meantime.

Plautus

There's very definitely a strong religious component to the Middle Eastern conflict above and beyond greed - if it was a strict materialist calculation they'd go for a one state-solution (or appreciate that the land isn't very valuable to begin with) but you're dealing with culture here: religion, ethnicity and nationalism.

The three are actually in a very imprecise amalgam - the Jews have, for historical reasons, been persecuted on the basis of religion, their intermarriage produced physical characteristics which racists seized upon as indicative of a separate (inferior, even) ethnicity, and the proposed solution was Zionism, or the creation of a state away from the vicissitudes of Christian Europe. There's a siege mentality on the other side too when Palestinians have their claims to distinctiveness denied with the same regularity that anti-semites deny Israel's right to exist.

For those reasons it isn't reducible to religion on its own, but it's a tactic of apologists to wheel out 'No true Scotsman' and say that those invoking religion to justify violence aren't 'real' Muslims, Jews or Christians (as it may be).

Purely selfish actors also don't go in for such self-negating tactics as suicide bombing unless there's something else ethereal in their motivation. Likewise, Netenyahu is constrained by very reactionary elements in the Knesset and Israeli settlers tend to be among the most convinced by the Torah's revanchist claims to the whole holy land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16174584 - consider that case from the last 48 hours. There are 9 separate walkways to the Al-Aqsa mosque, and to close just one generated furore. I'm inclined to believe that Palestinians were genuinely affronted (even if it is all a bit thick.)

ShooterSF

Conor Kenny wrote:

Staff Writer

The militant atheists of our generation are forever badgering people of faith, asking us to justify our own personal beliefs.

I'm pretty sure even the most "militant" atheist doesn't give a crap about someone's personal beliefs. Only when you make decisions that affect others based on those beliefs...

pH

whatislife wrote: »

Conor Kenny

Staff Writer

If the chief problem of religion is that it whips up tensions between different groups of people and disturbs peace, then Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the consummate hypocrites. The militant atheists of our generation are forever badgering people of faith, asking us to justify our own personal beliefs. Mr. Dawkins probably thinks that there’s a certain festive irony in him guest-editing the Christmas edition of the New Statesman, but many of us are beginning to grow weary. We get it, you don’t believe in God. Can you just leave the rest of us alone?

I'd be interested to hear what Conor means by "leave the rest of us alone" given that his main complaint in that paragraph is that he's guest editing the New Statesman.

Is he really saying Dawkins (and I presume any atheist) shouldn't discuss atheism (or indeed be a guest editor) in a private magazine?

Honestly, a lot of the "modern" anti-atheism argument seems to come down to STFU when you try and figure out what they're saying.

Reville's recent silliness in the IT was similar:

The paradox is that New Atheism must prevent many people, who sincerely believe in God as a core value, from also believing in evolution because one of the world's keenest scientific minds (Dawkins) persistently preaches that the theory of evolution makes God redundant.

Lacking and real answers to the points being raised they're resorting to asking/telling atheists to shut up in varying degrees of politeness.

Newaglish

whatislife wrote: »

Conor Kenny

Staff Writer

If the chief problem of religion is that it whips up tensions between different groups of people and disturbs peace, then Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the consummate hypocrites.

The entire premise of this article is incorrect.

seamus

His argument is that atheists have the gall to publish books, write articles and talk on TV about it.

We get it, you don’t believe in God. Can you just leave the rest of us alone?

I could equally say, "We get it, you believe in God. Can't you just leave the rest of us alone?"

What Mr Kenny misses is that atheists who are vocal, are vocal becuase they have to be. Because people without religion are still treated as second-class citizens in terms of their rights to choose and are treated like pariahs when they dare to ask to be able to interact with society, without religion.

Which, of course is exactly what Conor Kenny is complaining about. How dare the atheists ask you to shut up about God.

Hobbes

whatislife wrote: »

It must infuriate him that several prominent Christians have publically stated that they are praying for him,

From what I have read of him, he probably doesn't give a s...

sbsquarepants

whatislife wrote: »

We get it, you don’t believe in God. Can you just leave the rest of us alone?

If only the believers would do the same.
Now that would be heaven!:D

TwoShedsJackson

Hobbes wrote: »

From what I have read of him, he probably doesn't give a s...

And why would he, if anyone wants to pray for me when I'm on my deathbed, let them, won't make a damn bit of difference one way or the other

Dades

The worse thing about Dawkins, Hitchens et al, is that it prompts some people to write such utter bollocks like that article.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

God promised that land to the Jewish people, so it can't be an illegal occupation, can it?

I can't, for the life of me, fathom what the else you'd calibrate illegality against. If God then the land is his to give to who he wants. If not God then whoever can take the land shall have it - illegality being a moveable feast and sideshow to boot.

I mean, who hasn't taken the land they occupy from someone else at some point in history in order to be rendered hypocrites if calling someone elses occupation illegal.

Nations? Borders? Duration of occupancy? But arbitrary lines in ever shifting sands that. When it comes to who has a right to what land, might has always been right - eventually. That's why countries have armies.

MagicMarker

Speaking of which, I'm thinking of moving to a bigger house, antiskeptic, where abouts do you live?

Undergod

whatislife wrote: »

Conor Kenny

Staff Writer

If the chief problem of religion is that it whips up tensions between different groups of people and disturbs peace

Some people just don't think it's true; whether is whips up tensions is irrelevant to whether it's true.

whatislife wrote: »

Can you just leave the rest of us alone?

As has been pointed out: "How dare you express your opinions?"

Mark Hamill

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

if anyone wants to pray for me when I'm on my deathbed, let them, won't make a damn bit of difference one way or the other

Unless its the doctor of course:pac:

MisterEpicurus

'The Four Horsemen' are merely highlighting the debate that needs to be had in society over the existence of God. Over the past century, there has been little debate and everybody had to believe without questioning. Because of their books (and others), the philosophical question of God's existence is not as much a denigrated activity. They are also trying to normalize the term 'atheist', and that we can have morals without divine intervention. These endeavours are welcomed and should continue as long as possible.

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nations? Borders? Duration of occupancy? But arbitrary lines in ever shifting sands that.

True, but as a general rule, a country is owned by the people who live there.

Dudess

recedite wrote: »

notbywhatislife wrote: »

For example, the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with religion; it’s about the illegal occupation of someone else’s land.

God promised that land to the Jewish people, so it can't be an illegal occupation, can it?

Lots of stuff god ordered in the old testament would be illegal today.

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

Lots of stuff god ordered in the old testament would be illegal today.

Only by our arbitrary definitions of legal and illegal, whatever God does is perfectly fine according to His perfect judgement.

mikhail

recedite wrote: »

True, but as a general rule, a country is owned by the people who live there.

Sure, unless some god has seen fit to grant someone the divine right of kingship.

baalthor

whatislife wrote: »

Conor Kenny


The debate over the existence of a higher being is a question that has been the bane of mankind for centuries, and it isn’t going to be resolved any time soon. And it certainly isn’t going to be answered by a flustered old bible basher who thinks it’s clever to compare the question of a divine creator with a child’s belief in fairies. erudite chain-smoking alcoholic gets verbally taken to the launderette.

Note to Conor Kenny:

A "Bible basher" or "bible thumper" usually means someone who is enthusiastically in favour of the Bible and its message.

Arcus Arrow

An article by Conor Kenny, staff writer and stiff thinker.