New Atheists . . .‘shallow’, ‘naive’, ‘dangerous’

SebBerkovich

This is the title of an article from the Irish Times today.

It's not actually as provocative as the title suggests. The article is more or less hanging on this assumption:

With religion out of the way, the New Atheists argue that we ought to put our faith in science and reason to deliver us from evil and usher in a future of unfettered human progress.

The article then goes on to use this argument....

The danger in assuming that science and technology are inherently good is that it tempts us to have blind faith in whatever they allow us to do.

Personally i don't know anyone who would take moral lessons directly from an abstract concept like science. As far as i'm aware the intention of removing religion isn't to replace it with "science" - rather it's to replace the moral absolutism that exists in the world with a the ability to make informed moral choice.

It strikes me that accepting morality without question is obviously inferior when compared with morality garnered from reason and debate.

Cabaal

Of course science can be used for bad things (Atom Bombs), but then so can religious (Spanish Inquisition),

Morality comes from neither of course...but then same as the op I don't know of anyone that has claimed they have gotten morals from science, pretty odd to suggest this in the article.

Morality comes from people's ability to empathize by putting themselves in that other persons situation and thinking "hmm...maybe I wouldn't like this being done to me".

People that class whole parts of society as "unnatural" and others that think its ok to use people as guinea pigs without consent for tests lack these morals in my view.

While the article may use the terms ‘shallow’, ‘naive’, ‘dangerous’ for atheists,
You can just as easily use ‘self obsessed’, ‘naive’, ‘dangerous’ for religions, self obsessed coming from the belief that a bring created billions and billions of stars and trillions of planets but only created one with life and out of that life human's are so very important.
:rolleyes:

Penny 4 Thoughts

Robert Grant in The Irish Times wrote:

The New Atheists offer a binary world view, neatly divided into good and evil. Science and reason on the one hand, religion and faith on the other. The implication being: if we get rid of religion we get rid of evil.

With religion out of the way, the New Atheists argue that we ought to put our faith in science and reason to deliver us from evil and usher in a future of unfettered human progress.

I have never heard a new Atheist argue this.

Mark Tapley

You hear quite often said that atheists have exchanged faith in God for "faith" in Science. To me this is ridiculous. Yes I look to Science for explanations of the nature of the Universe but science is an ongoing process that can accept new evidence.
Science is not my faith, Dawkins is not my Jesus. Atheists are diverse section of socity with many differing viewpoints. Our morals are our own they are just not based on the threat of eternal damnation.

Cabaal

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I have never heard a new Atheist argue this.

I've never heard anybody make this argument,
Gota wounder where he's pulling this nonsense from

Dan_Solo

It's the usual judging by your own standards isn't it. I have "faith" in something I believe exists, so everybody else must use "faith" to believe in things. Why must morality emerge from either religion or science anyway, since there is plenty of evidence of immorality in both camps.

"You're all as bad as I am!"

Dan_Solo

The human capacity for evil doesn’t vanish with a set of particular individuals or practices. It is part of being human and forgetting this risks the destruction of other ways of being for the sake of a naive belief that we can somehow escape our complex and corruptible nature.

This is a common line we've heard innumerable times over the last while regarding the Tuam babies amongst other things. Quite shocking that a TCD lecturer would use the same lame argument.
Priest does good? Praise the church.
Priest does bad? Blame the priest.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Quite shocking that a TCD lecturer would use the same lame argument.

Less shocking though that he ain't a science lecturer.

Czarcasm

I think his broader point though, is with regard to human nature, and how people can corrupt an abstract ideology, be it religion, atheism, science, to fit their own ends -

Human nature

They make the mistake here of treating evil as if it exists exclusively within a set of beliefs or practices, rather than as an inherent part of human nature.

As journalist Chris Hedges puts it, they externalise evil. Fundamentalist religious groups do the same, only for them evil resides in liberal secularism.

The danger here is that it deludes both groups into believing that all we need to do to banish evil is to rid the world of a certain set of practices and beliefs.

This is a fool’s errand: the capacity for oppression and intolerance is not unique to the religious, or the secular. Rather it is part of our corruptible nature.

Countless political movements and revolutions throughout history have promised a new and better future if we just got rid of some other group of people, only to find the same, or worse, problems surfacing time and again.

The term "New Atheist" is a bit cringeworthy though, I think the more accurate term for the people the author is talking about would be "people who shore up their anti-theism with scientific theory", but that's a bit of a mouthful.

Nothing new about these people either, they've been around since the dawn of these abstract concepts themselves, and as a tutor in Philosophy the author should be aware of this. It is, after all, human nature.

wretcheddomain

Why does the author of that article assume that science is a fundamental part of being an atheist? It's no more fundamental than playing a piano. It just so happens that science is useful at explaining the world but you don't necessarily need to be interested or even revere science to stabilise as an atheist. I think the author assumes that every atheist is the same as Richard Dawkins.

Dades

The danger in assuming that science and technology are inherently good is that it tempts us to have blind faith in whatever they allow us to do.

This is just a selection of words thrown together to make science sound vaguely sinister and something not to be trusted without a dollop of religion. It's utterly meaningless.

The whole article a strawman against some sort of character who believes that once religion disappears people won't be assholes so then science can save the world. Cartoon "new atheists" such as this are not representative of atheists in general.

Delirium

Piliger

What is this with a front page religious proselytising article in the Irish Times ? Huh ?

What really bugs people like Grant is the new Atheists who have the temerity to stand up and label religion for what it is, one of the biggest sources of evil in the world. That is what he really hates.

Thank goodness for Dawkins et al who have given those of us who prefer rational logical thinking to the dozy blind fantasy faith of the religion. Those who try to make a good thing out of believing in an all powerful extra terrestrial being who created every molecule in the universe, watches over everyone of the 7 billion humans on this planet, guides their lives, listening to their pleadings and decides to grant some and not others. What an appalling piece of pure delusion.

This is a slimy piece of prejudice that wouldn't be tolerated by the Irish Times if it were not on Atheism but on a religion.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

This is a slimy piece of prejudice that wouldn't be tolerated by the Irish Times if it were not on Atheism but on a religion.

Exactly
Let them print all the nonsense they like ... on both sides

Piliger

SW wrote: »

...

That sums it up exactly !

Akrasia

Morality does not come from science. But science can make it better.

Eg. For ages the church thought it was morally justified to beat children at schools in order to discipline them.

Then we applied the scientific method and studied outcomes and effects of corporal punishment and now we realise the harm that physical punishment does.

Science helps us to understand causes and effects. Most morality incorporates a desire to do no harm to others.

wp_rathead

This Article has made me listen to Tim Minchin beat poem Storm again - helps soothe the anger

Mr. CooL ICE

I sometimes visit my parents just to have a nice Sunday dinner, which is shallow. I sometimes don't get jokes, which can be naive. I sometimes drive over the speed limit, which is dangerous. The author might be onto something here

Hotblack Desiato

Dreadful article even by recent Irish Times 'standards' on this topic

wretcheddomain

Science can act to bolster moral positions that would hitherto have gained no such certain currency.

For example, we have learned from genetics that there really are no differences between white and black populations and thus no grounding for racism.

There are many other examples, and I'm sure many more will be put forth in this thread, but this alone should highlight how science can act to invalidate a moral proposition if it contains a scientific presupposition.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Less shocking though that he ain't a science lecturer.

He claims to be a tutor at TCD, in logic of all things

Rob Grant wrote:

I am a Dublin based writer. I recently completed my PhD in Philosophy at Trinity College Dublin. My research was in the philosophy of language and linguistics where I examined our concepts of meaning, truth and communication and how the three intersect.
Since completing my PhD I have been working as a writer and researcher with a connected health company, RelateCare. I am also teaching a number of tutorials in Trinity in logic and the history of philosophy.

And he has also written this article for journal.ie claiming that sick people should stay at home and use a smartphone to treat themselves, instead of going to hospital. Which opinion is, of course, entirely unconnected to his other employment with RelateCare

"I examined our concepts of meaning, truth and communication and how the three intersect"
Is it possible the Irish times have finally found a worthy successor to John Waters?

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

He claims to be a tutor at TCD, in logic of all things

TBH his CV reads like he's an utter non-entity. HTF did he get an article in The Irish Times? Are they that desperate? Was he free by any chance?

recedite

recedite wrote: »

He claims to be a tutor at TCD, in logic of all things

In Philosophy.
















...I'm just saying.

smokingman

Whenever I hear "philosophy", I'm always reminded of this...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U&feature=kp

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

In Philosophy.

Poor old Philosophy.

Philosophy used to mean "Love of Wisdom", and for the ancient greeks, it meant the study of everything and how we know about it.

Mathematics got recognized early on as a separate thing, and then Science came along and started carving out areas to study: physics, biology, chemistry...

Eventually Philosophy was reduced to the study of the study of the study of knowledge, and became so meta it disappeared up its own bottom. Now Philosophers have nothing to do except teach undergraduates and troll the Irish Times.

Dan_Solo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eventually Philosophy was reduced to the study of the study of the study of knowledge, and became so meta it disappeared up its own bottom. Now Philosophers have nothing to do except teach undergraduates and troll the Irish Times.

I thought it was 90% language theory these days? It must be galling for philosophers (real and self-professed) every time they look at what "PhD" actually means. :-)

Akrasia

Philosophy is not all useless
Philosophy is excellent at exploring issues of values and judgements where there is no clear line between the correct and incorrect answer to a question.
Where philosophy accepts this role and works with science and uses the most up to date academic research to support itself, then philosophy is perfectly respectable.

Where philosophy fails is where it goes into metaphysics and infinite regressions in ontology that result in ludicrous conclusions that can never be supported by any evidence or reasoned argument. The entire postmodern movement in philosophy was one big dead end, as is most metaphysics where it pays no attention to science based cosmology.

Philosophy can often be abused by those who want to shut down debate by demanding a point of agreement before the discussion can begin, and then refusing to agree to any shared understanding, thereby resulting in a merry go round of definitions of core principles.

On the other hand, we have useful philosophy

Dan Dennett's recent work is very useful in identifying the differences between helpful thought experiments and those that cloud reason.

Philosophy is useful in working out ethics and theories of mind eg, How do we allocate responsibility for our own behaviour if we are largely determined by our genes and our environment. When does an artificial intelligence become self aware, or when does a person die (ie, is it when the heart stops, or the brain stem dies, or when some of the main cognitive functions are destroyed)

Philosophy is useful in politics because it allows to reason through what we 'ought' to be doing and compare it to what the expected outcomes of certain actions would be. Again, political philosophy that ignores the scientific evidence is worse than useless, but if philosophers paid attention to the data, they can be very useful in helping us to understand our choices a bit better.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have not listened to it yet (left mp3 player and headphones at home so have none in work) but I believe Nugent was on Newstalk yesterday discussing the article if this is of any interest to anyone.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

Philosophy is useful in working out ethics and theories of mind eg, How do we allocate responsibility for our own behaviour if we are largely determined by our genes and our environment.

What philosophy is useful for in this context is asking a question like "How do we allocate responsibility etc?", producing pages of analysis and logical reasoning, and ending up saying "The same way we did yesterday, but with the following philosophical justification", which is a great gig if you're a philosopher, but not actually useful to anyone else.

Vivisectus

Hey, the author would be completely correct about atheists who think religion is the "root of all evil".

But I am not aware of any?

What a lazy attempt at strawmanning the position of Dawkins et al.

Vivisectus

Vivisectus wrote: »

Hey, the author would be completely correct about atheists who think religion is the "root of all evil".

But I am not aware of any?

What a lazy attempt at strawmanning the position of Dawkins et al.

I take it you haven't seen the Channel 4 series by Dawkins entitled "The Root of All Evil?," then? :pac:

Czarcasm

gvn wrote: »

I take it you haven't seen the Channel 4 series by Dawkins entitled "The Root of All Evil?," then? :pac:

It was actually Channel 4 that insisted on it being called that though. Dawkins, as much as I find much of his opinions tiresome, has never said religion is the root of all evil.

Dawkins et al though, are representative of anti-theism, not so much atheism, in the same way as Michael Nugent conflates secularism with atheism, which as I've said on here before does his position a disservice, as if only atheists advocate secularism.

Pherekydes

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dawkins et al though, are representative of anti-theism, not so much atheism, in the same way as Michael Nugent conflates secularism with atheism, which as I've said on here before does his position a disservice, as if only atheists advocate secularism.

Ah, come on now. The Church(es) have been conflating the "evils" of atheism and secularism since forever.

We mostly link secularism with atheism because, like it or not, a higher proportion of atheists are secular compared with believers.

This is not to deny the position of believers, such as your good self, who advocate secularism.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

It was actually Channel 4 that insisted on it being called that though. Dawkins, as much as I find much of his opinions tiresome, has never said religion is the root of all evil.

Dawkins is misquoted wildely (yes, and widely) in the media who use him to generate huge profits.

Dawkins et al though, are representative of anti-theism, not so much atheism,

This is a really silly assertion. Dawkins is completely and comprehensively representative of Atheism and anyone who thinks otherwise is deeply confused.

is he also anti theist ? Of course !! Surely that follows like night follows day ! How can someone who does not believe in fairies not be anti fairies, when the fairy priests and fairy followers start dozens of wars, slaughter people by the million and rape and abuse our children ?

in the same way as Michael Nugent conflates secularism with atheism, which as I've said on here before does his position a disservice, as if only atheists advocate secularism.

His conflating of these two such different concepts is reminiscent of the American religious right, and Fox's O'Reilly. I don't know much about him but if he really is this confused then he must be a total idiot.

Piliger

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ah, come on now. The Church(es) have been conflating the "evils" of atheism and secularism since forever.

It is both comical and infuriating to read these kinds of attacks on Atheists, where we are accused of being 'aggressive' and 'new Atheists' etc etc. When every day in every church across the world, Atheists are constantly being damned - and where Atheists are equated to being "Godless" and therefore the worst kind of human beings !

We mostly link secularism with atheism because, like it or not, a higher proportion of atheists are secular compared with believers.

Linking Atheism and Secularism is completely wrong and muddies the whole waters of the debate. Many many theists-lite people are secularists. To conflate the terms and the meaning does no service to Atheists and the wider discussion on the role of religion in society imho.

Czarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have not listened to it yet (left mp3 player and headphones at home so have none in work) but I believe Nugent was on Newstalk yesterday discussing the article if this is of any interest to anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo I listened to that piece, and honestly I wouldn't recommend it. It came off as three egos locked in a room and left to fight over a soap box, with none of them actually prepared to listen to what anyone else was saying. The award for unfortunate overstating of the facts though must go to Michael when replying to a question by George Hook -

"You seem too intelligent to believe all that stuff"...

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

Dawkins is misquoted wildely (yes, and widely) in the media who use him to generate huge profits.

Ahh here Pilliger, Dawkins comes out with enough inflammatory statements of his own accord that he knows will draw attention from the media, rather than the other way round. In the case of the Channel 4 name change, Channel 4 wanted the documentary to appear more controversial than it was. Channel 4 are well known for their bottom of the barrel programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator in society. Dawkins could've said "I'll take my documentary somewhere else thanks, but no thanks", but instead, I wouldn't put it past him that he's clever enough not to have cut off his nose to spite his face and figured that ANY media exposure is better than no media exposure at all.

This is a really silly assertion. Dawkins is completely and comprehensively representative of Atheism and anyone who thinks otherwise is deeply confused.

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more, nothing less. A person cannot be representative of nothing. That's why I say that Dawkins is not representative of Atheism, nor is he representative of people who identify as Atheist, because people who identify as Atheist don't seek to impose their lack of belief on anyone else. Religion just doesn't figure in their outlook on life. That's about the sum of it, and they aren't bothered by what someone else does or doesn't believe.

It's often been pointed out that Atheists are not an organised body of people who share a common lack of belief, and yet the exact opposite of that is what Dawkins tries to put forward - he tries to gain a commonality with people using scientific theories as a solidifier - "Science will save you", so to speak. Sounds awfully dogmatic to me anyway, and people buy into it because it gives them something they can identify with - "I use the scientific method to explain the world around me, I'm one of the smart people now". There's a comfort in that line of thinking as part of a common group that's no different from the comfort one derives from religion. They're two different lines of thinking, and what people like Dawkins do is simply set one against the other, when the two can actually reside quite comfortably in most people's minds without causing any confusion whatsoever.

is he also anti theist ? Of course !! Surely that follows like night follows day ! How can someone who does not believe in fairies not be anti fairies, when the fairy priests and fairy followers start dozens of wars, slaughter people by the million and rape and abuse our children ?

Zzzz... Sorry, I tuned out there when you start posting the same old rhetoric that is nothing new, uncontroversial, nor original. Your point is completely lost, and that's why often I don't bother to engage with people the minute I hear the old clichés like "sky fairy, blah blah". It's indicative of the fact that they are working off the assumption that people of faith are of lesser intellect, and would you engage with someone who thinks you're an idiot? I wouldn't, as I'd consider it a waste of my time. That's why I've always seen these "existence of God" "debates" as nothing more than self-promotion and loving the sound of their own voice.

I would love for everyone to be exposed to Carl Sagan at some point in their lives, because he had universal appeal in the way he could express his ideas to people in a way that they could understand. Hitchens, Dawkins, they're not interested in humanity nor furthering understanding of the world around us, they're only interested in self promotion, and they use their own brand of pompous anti-theism to do so. They're clever enough never to attack people on a personal level, but they will attack the concept of religion, arguing that religion is irrational and illogical, because if they attack people who are religious on a personal level and call them irrational and illogical, well then they can never be anything else - religion is only an abstract concept, and lack of belief doesn't suddenly turn an irrational and illogical mindset into a rational and logical one - Being atheist doesn't indicate that anyone is more intelligent, in the same way as being religious doesn't indicate that someone is, well, less intelligent.

His conflating of these two such different concepts is reminiscent of the American religious right, and Fox's O'Reilly. I don't know much about him but if he really is this confused then he must be a total idiot.

A good example of my point above. I would suggest that Michael while his efforts are noble, his methods are effectively futile. I wouldn't say he must be an idiot, but I would say he is misguided, because a simple name change would mean that his ideas would appeal to a more universal audience than just people who identify as Atheist, of which there are few, compared to people who advocate for Secular Ireland, of which there are many.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh here Pilliger, Dawkins comes out with enough inflammatory statements of his own accord that he knows will draw attention from the media, rather than the other way round.

No he doesn't.

Dawkins could've said "I'll take my documentary somewhere else thanks, but no thanks", but instead, I wouldn't put it past him that he's clever enough not to have cut off his nose to spite his face and figured that ANY media exposure is better than no media exposure at all.

Silly comment. Most deals like this leave the broadcaster to chose a name, just like book publishers.

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more, nothing less. A person cannot be representative of nothing.

Yes they can. I cannot see any reason why not.

That's why I say that Dawkins is not representative of Atheism, nor is he representative of people who identify as Atheist, because people who identify as Atheist don't seek to impose their lack of belief on anyone else. Religion just doesn't figure in their outlook on life. That's about the sum of it, and they aren't bothered by what someone else does or doesn't believe.

It seems you misunderstand the meaning of the word representative. Atheists do bother with what other people believe because their lives are hugely impacted by theistic laws and the appallingly negative impact that theists have on the community.

It's often been pointed out that Atheists are not an organised body of people who share a common lack of belief, and yet the exact opposite of that is what Dawkins tries to put forward - he tries to gain a commonality with people using scientific theories as a solidifier - "Science will save you", so to speak.

This is more nonsense. You conflate the idea of an organised body, with groups of people who hold a single point of view in common. And you appear to have no ability to grasp the common sense that there is in people who share a common viewpoint in life that identifying together means.

Sounds awfully dogmatic to me anyway,

I'd like you to justify that. I have never ever heard Dawkins lay down rules or laws or push people to stick with them. I think this whole thing is just another rant to try to knock and smear Dawkins. You make no worthwhile arguments and your assertions are transparently concocted.

. . . and people buy into it because it gives them something they can identify with - "I use the scientific method to explain the world around me, I'm one of the smart people now". There's a comfort in that line of thinking as part of a common group that's no different from the comfort one derives from religion.

LOL really ??? Hilarious. Comparing a group of deluded tooth fairy people who believe in an all powerful alien being who created and controls every molecule in the universe, yet who also watches over every single one of the 7 billion humans on our planet 24/7, listens to their pleading prayers and decides to grant a few of them from time to time based on their devotion to it. What a joke. Comparing that to people who actually believe in facts and evidence. Hilarious.

They're two different lines of thinking, and what people like Dawkins do is simply set one against the other, when the two can actually reside quite comfortably in most people's minds without causing any confusion whatsoever.

No. There are deluded ways of thinking, and there are rational sensible ways of thinking. They are not equivalent points of view or ways of thinking.

It's indicative of the fact that they are working off the assumption that people of faith are of lesser intellect, and would you engage with someone who thinks you're an idiot?

They are. And you are here doing it. QED.

I wouldn't, as I'd consider it a waste of my time. That's why I've always seen these "existence of God" "debates" as nothing more than self-promotion and loving the sound of their own voice.

And yet your lengthy contribution. The irony is magnificent.

I would love for everyone to be exposed to Carl Sagan at some point in their lives, because he had universal appeal in the way he could express his ideas to people in a way that they could understand. Hitchens, Dawkins, they're not interested in humanity nor furthering understanding of the world around us, they're only interested in self promotion, and they use their own brand of pompous anti-theism to do so.

Sagan was exactly the same. The only difference was that he didn't have the balls to speak out the way Dawkins and Hitchens have. They have, like many of us, had enough with the timid attitude in the face of this appalling religious crap that is foisted on us. Your adulation of Sagan is comical. And the transparency of your resentment toward Atheists who do have the balls to stand up and tell theists to their face how dumb and deluded they are is what is really clear about your posts. We Atheists have had centuries of arrogant theists damming us, vilifying us, abusing us, killing us, offending us for our views. But when a few Atheists dare to stand up and give a bit back ? You come off all outraged. LOL.

Being atheist doesn't indicate that anyone is more intelligent, in the same way as being religious doesn't indicate that someone is, well, less intelligent.

Oh they do. You can't be in any way as intelligent if you believe in the tooth fairy.

recedite

Czarcasm wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo I listened to that piece, and honestly I wouldn't recommend it. It came off as three egos locked in a room and left to fight over a soap box, with none of them actually prepared to listen to what anyone else was saying. The award for unfortunate overstating of the facts though must go to Michael when replying to a question by George Hook -

"You seem too intelligent to believe all that stuff"...

What Nugent actually said was "You seem too intelligent to believe some of the things that some religions believe in", and that was after Hook tried to bait him by declaring himself to be the only religious person there and saying "you probably think I'm a bit of a dope".

And then Nugent had to repeat himself, because both Hook and Grant immediately tried to twist around what he had said, in the same way that you have. Its at 22.00 minutes if you want to listen again.

I'm always amazed at how Nugent manages to keep up his good humoured responses in the face of the constant straw-manning and ignorance that gets thrown at him.
In fact Grant's whole argument was one big strawman, and Nugent tore it apart. I actually feel sorry for Grant, he seems to think that philosopy is about the manipulation of the truth. That line of thinking was discredited long ago and named sophistry. He practices it, but he's not any good at it.

Czarcasm

recedite wrote: »

What Nugent actually said was "You seem too intelligent to believe some of the things that some religions believe in", and that was after Hook tried to bait him by declaring himself to be the only religious person there and saying "you probably think I'm a bit of a dope".

And then Nugent had to repeat himself, because both Hook and Grant immediately tried to twist around what he had said, in the same way that you have. Its at 22.00 minutes if you want to listen again.

I was paraphrasing was all. It was tough enough to listen to the three of them shouting over each other to be heard for the whole 26 minutes. It was a terrible discussion by any standard where they were reduced to semantics like what one person calls inflammatory language, another would call it robust, totally detracting from the main thrust of the issues they were actually meant to be discussing.

I'm always amazed at how Nugent manages to keep up his good humoured responses in the face of the constant straw-manning and ignorance that gets thrown at him.

There's nothing amazing about it really. When you're used to hearing the same repeditive shìte over and over, it quickly gets old and ineffective.

In fact Grant's whole argument was one big strawman, and Nugent tore it apart. I actually feel sorry for Grant, he seems to think that philosopy is about the manipulation of the truth. That line of thinking was discredited long ago and named sophistry. He practices it, but he's not any good at it.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. I thought his article was poor, and his efforts to argue the points made in his article were poor. This happens when a person isn't used to their opinions being challenged - they become lazy and complacent in their thinking, rather than question their own argument to see does it stand up to scrutiny.

This is why I can see the thought processes behind his argument that he was making from a Humanitarian perspective, but because his argument was based on a false premise, it was easy to perceive it as a criticism of Atheism when you're an Atheist.

Dan_Solo

Czarcasm wrote: »

Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more, nothing less. A person cannot be representative of nothing. That's why I say that Dawkins is not representative of Atheism, nor is he representative of people who identify as Atheist, because people who identify as Atheist don't seek to impose their lack of belief on anyone else. Religion just doesn't figure in their outlook on life. That's about the sum of it, and they aren't bothered by what someone else does or doesn't believe.

By this same logic, any person who has ever mentioned their faith, or even let it be known to others, is an evangelist bible bashing missionary.

Czarcasm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

By this same logic, any person who has ever mentioned their faith, or even let it be known to others, is an evangelist bible bashing missionary.

Well if you wanted to use that line of logic, a better example even than Dawkins from an Atheist perspective would be Ricky Gervais - never, ever, I mean, EVER, shuts up about the fact that he is Atheist.

At least Dawkins is somewhat interesting to read or to listen to, but Gervais should really just stick to what he became famous for in the first place. As a comedian he's genuinely funny, but as a figurehead of Atheist philosophy?

He's more a figurehead for anti-theism, and I can say with a degree of certainty that most people who identify as Atheist care nothing for religion, and don't care what Dawkins, Hitchens, Gervais, etc have to say about religion or science, etc. These people can speak for themselves and don't feel any religious persecution nonsense.

recedite

Czarcasm wrote: »

..Gervais should really just stick to what he became famous for in the first place. As a comedian he's genuinely funny, but as a figurehead of Atheist philosophy?.

You should watch his movie "The Invention of Lying"; its both funny and philosophical.
Also its quite relevant to Grant's self-proclaimed specialty; "I examined our concepts of meaning, truth and communication and how the three intersect".
"Bending" of the truth, the power of suggestion, the value of propaganda, marketing, sophistry etc etc... they all have their place in our society. The trick is to be able to recognise them. Organised religion is perhaps the biggest exponent of all these.

Dan_Solo

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well if you wanted to use that line of logic, a better example even than Dawkins from an Atheist perspective would be Ricky Gervais - never, ever, I mean, EVER, shuts up about the fact that he is Atheist.

No, I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of your argument that atheists "by definition" do not even think about religion. You can switch to talking about whoever but that still stands.
Not sure I ever cared much for Ricky Gervais in any capacity.

Czarcasm wrote: »

He's more a figurehead for anti-theism, and I can say with a degree of certainty that most people who identify as Atheist care nothing for religion, and don't care what Dawkins, Hitchens, Gervais, etc have to say about religion or science, etc. These people can speak for themselves and don't feel any religious persecution nonsense.

Every time I see a school I see religious persecution nonsense. Every time I think of our constitution I feel religious persecution nonsense.
So, can you explain why any religious person who mentions or even allows to be known they are religious shouldn't be considered evangelical? Or are only atheists supposed to shut up about their opinions?
For who's benefit do churchbells ring if you should just shut up already about your beliefs?

Tomblyboo

Banks

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well if you wanted to use that line of logic, a better example even than Dawkins from an Atheist perspective would be Ricky Gervais - never, ever, I mean, EVER, shuts up about the fact that he is Atheist.

At least Dawkins is somewhat interesting to read or to listen to, but Gervais should really just stick to what he became famous for in the first place. As a comedian he's genuinely funny, but as a figurehead of Atheist philosophy?

He's more a figurehead for anti-theism, and I can say with a degree of certainty that most people who identify as Atheist care nothing for religion, and don't care what Dawkins, Hitchens, Gervais, etc have to say about religion or science, etc. These people can speak for themselves and don't feel any religious persecution nonsense.

It's just copy and paste and change the names isn't it ? Is there an echo in this thread ?

Dan_Solo

So Czarcasm, if you really want to use Gervais as your "anti-theist", are you saying anything about Dawkins at all?
And aren't you, by expressing any opinion about your beliefs, now defining yourself as an anti-atheist?

Czarcasm

recedite wrote: »

You should watch his movie "The Invention of Lying"; its both funny and philosophical.
Also its quite relevant to Grant's self-proclaimed specialty; "I examined our concepts of meaning, truth and communication and how the three intersect".

That's what I mean - I've seen The Invention of Lying, and I took it at face value for what it was - a funny movie. I didn't try to read too much into it beyond that tbh. If I had been predisposed to reading into things too much, I'd start seeing things that weren't there, and I wouldn't enjoy something simply for what it is - a funny film.

As for Grant, well, he should've examined his opinions a lot harder before he put pen to paper so to speak. He failed to do any proper research and so his opinion was based on bad data. THIS was the real irony of his article - he was giving it welly about how concepts can be corrupted to suit an agenda, and he'd done the very same thing himself. It's like I always say - If you're going to choose someone to represent your cause, choose carefully, because the wrong choice can leave you with egg on your face.

"Bending" of the truth, the power of suggestion, the value of propaganda, marketing, sophistry etc etc... they all have their place in our society. The trick is to be able to recognise them.

So, so true, you could nearly print that out on a placard and hang it on the wall where everyone could see it, because all too often people don't recognize when they're being led by someone else, rather than actually thinking for themselves.

Organised religion is perhaps the biggest exponent of all these.

Organised "Atheism" isn't nearly as big an exponent of it, and I'm not sure it will ever be a threat to organised religion, because organised religion has no objection to being seen as organised, whereas organised "Atheism" will have Anti-theists scream - "We are not organised, how dare you!".

It's hard to argue with that sort of mindset that doesn't want to accept that they're as guilty of group think as the organisations they rally against.

Dan_Solo

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's hard to argue with that sort of mindset that doesn't want to accept that they're as guilty of group think as the organisations they rally against.

Claiming that people in organised religions are incapable of thinking for themselves... tut tut.

Czarcasm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of your argument that atheists "by definition" do not even think about religion. You can switch to talking about whoever but that still stands.
Not sure I ever cared much for Ricky Gervais in any capacity.

Is that what that was? I read it as you trying to put words in my mouth and argue against something I hadn't said.

Every time I see a school I see religious persecution nonsense. Every time I think of our constitution I feel religious persecution nonsense.

Come back to me when you're actually being persecuted, like if you were being stoned for being Atheist, OK we won't go that far (not that I would defend you mind), so maybe when you're being accused of child abuse for being Atheist. Until then, you're really in a rather comfortable position living in a country where you're actually not persecuted for being Atheist.

So, can you explain why any religious person who mentions or even allows to be known they are religious shouldn't be considered evangelical? Or are only atheists supposed to shut up about their opinions?

There you go again arguing against something I never said. You can consider whoever you want evangelical, I'm not going to argue against you, I'm also not going to defend something I never said either. I also never said Atheists should shut up about their opinions; anti-theists on the other hand, well, if they have something original to say, I'm all ears, but otherwise - heard it all before.

For who's benefit do churchbells ring if you should just shut up already about your beliefs?

For those who don't believe they should shut up about their beliefs? I'd have thought that much was obvious.