News1 min ago
The Trouble with Atheism
99 Answers
Are atheists neo-Jacobins ?
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
http://documentaryhea...trouble-with-atheism/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
my avatar has given me a precis of Liddle's documentary, Naomi:
The new Atheists are much like a religious group. They have absolute certainty about their dual principles: (1) there is no God and (2) science (Darwinian evolution on earth and quantum phyics in heaven) can explain all. They have holy books (the Origin!) and temples (CERN!!).
They have an agenda to create a secular society. This will have the same evil consequences as similar experiments in the past: the Jacobinian Reign of Terror, Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany(!) and Mao's China.
The conclusion is predicated on the key premise that an objective morality is impossible without a theistic interpretation of the universe.
The premise (repeated by all the lecture circuit religious apologists) is false and its repetiton two and a half thousand years after its refutation is tiresome.
Bad men will act badly and good men well, Khandro. Morality comes from our consideration of ourselves as (necessarily) social animals. Rational thought can lead us to expand our instincts for co-operation to broader units than the family or the tribe as well as to consider our relationship with the rest of the natural world. That is how we've come to view slavery and genocide as wrong; and how we've developed notions like animal rights.
How has religion helped in this process?
The new Atheists are much like a religious group. They have absolute certainty about their dual principles: (1) there is no God and (2) science (Darwinian evolution on earth and quantum phyics in heaven) can explain all. They have holy books (the Origin!) and temples (CERN!!).
They have an agenda to create a secular society. This will have the same evil consequences as similar experiments in the past: the Jacobinian Reign of Terror, Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany(!) and Mao's China.
The conclusion is predicated on the key premise that an objective morality is impossible without a theistic interpretation of the universe.
The premise (repeated by all the lecture circuit religious apologists) is false and its repetiton two and a half thousand years after its refutation is tiresome.
Bad men will act badly and good men well, Khandro. Morality comes from our consideration of ourselves as (necessarily) social animals. Rational thought can lead us to expand our instincts for co-operation to broader units than the family or the tribe as well as to consider our relationship with the rest of the natural world. That is how we've come to view slavery and genocide as wrong; and how we've developed notions like animal rights.
How has religion helped in this process?
I think v_e, that is a very fair summing up. Though your conclusion of the main thesis of the documentary is I feel, off the mark. Liddle did not say "an objective morality is impossible without a theistic interpretation of the universe". I think what he was saying was rather, that we all need more tolerance, because, as history has repeatedly shown, the kind of intolerance which seems to be becoming more and more prevalent by militant atheism (witness some of the attacks and ridicule meted on these threads) can lead to serious consequences. Your own personal belief outlined in your last paragraph is reasonable, and these principles can be upheld by all, religious or otherwise.
@ Khandro - I genuinely think you are mistaken.What you describe as "militant atheism" is not a new phenomenon, nor do I feel that it especially militant, unless you class refutation, counter-argument and rebuttal as militant.
There is however and increasing trend for atheists to no longer allow religion and those that preach it an unchallenged free pass - not when their world view impacts upon secular society. Irrational or unevidenced assertions are challenged. Cut and paste preaching is exposed. Illogical points or anti-scientific points are rebutted, robustly.
Above anything else, many atheists, myself included, no longer feel it necessary to offer automatic deference or respect to faith, because in my opinion no religion, no faith is deserving of unqualified respect, no matter how fervently some who post here believe in a particular branch or sect of religion.
Some individuals that argue from a pro- religious point of view are afforded respect based upon the quality of their argument and their rhetoric. Others, who initiate sanctimonious homilies, or cut and paste text; those who offer antiscientific commentary culled from fundamentalist websites; those who refuse to engage in debate with those offering a counterpoint or rebuttal ; those, who when forced into their own original content revert to the arguments of the schoolyard - these people are ridiculed, robustly refuted, made the butt of the joke or the target of sarcasm - and deservedly so.
And whilst several pro religious members of AB have posted to express their admiration or support for one of the more egregious exemplars of cut and paste sermonising, that support has more to do with their sense that they feel their faith is under attack.
Rod Liddells documentary is his attempt to fulfill his own narrative, with highly selective and edited interviews, and a bias to prove his own agenda. Hardly an impartial, objective or balanced view.
There is however and increasing trend for atheists to no longer allow religion and those that preach it an unchallenged free pass - not when their world view impacts upon secular society. Irrational or unevidenced assertions are challenged. Cut and paste preaching is exposed. Illogical points or anti-scientific points are rebutted, robustly.
Above anything else, many atheists, myself included, no longer feel it necessary to offer automatic deference or respect to faith, because in my opinion no religion, no faith is deserving of unqualified respect, no matter how fervently some who post here believe in a particular branch or sect of religion.
Some individuals that argue from a pro- religious point of view are afforded respect based upon the quality of their argument and their rhetoric. Others, who initiate sanctimonious homilies, or cut and paste text; those who offer antiscientific commentary culled from fundamentalist websites; those who refuse to engage in debate with those offering a counterpoint or rebuttal ; those, who when forced into their own original content revert to the arguments of the schoolyard - these people are ridiculed, robustly refuted, made the butt of the joke or the target of sarcasm - and deservedly so.
And whilst several pro religious members of AB have posted to express their admiration or support for one of the more egregious exemplars of cut and paste sermonising, that support has more to do with their sense that they feel their faith is under attack.
Rod Liddells documentary is his attempt to fulfill his own narrative, with highly selective and edited interviews, and a bias to prove his own agenda. Hardly an impartial, objective or balanced view.
One former atheist, a social worker, came to be impressed by the Bible’s ability to influence lives. He said: “Having spent many years, with very limited success, trying to help people change behavior that was damaging to them and others, I found it remarkable to see how dramatically people could change for the better. I also learned that the changes were sustained.”
Nevertheless, as far as some atheists are concerned, belief in God has produced far more massacres and conflicts than goodness and altruism. They may recognize that faith has a good effect on some, but they themselves remain profoundly skeptical.
Nevertheless, as far as some atheists are concerned, belief in God has produced far more massacres and conflicts than goodness and altruism. They may recognize that faith has a good effect on some, but they themselves remain profoundly skeptical.
Cut and Paste again - this time http://vigilantcitize...viewtopic.php?p=36476
The remark wasn't intended as a slur, Sandy. I think a lot of these posts are done for fun rather than enlightenment. Your sardonic manner suggests that at least one "simple" Christian is having fun at the expense of "simple" atheists like Naomi and me. I don't take offence at this. In fact I'm rather amused by it.
Happy New Year to you. I'm off to feed the fox and open the cava.
Happy New Year to you. I'm off to feed the fox and open the cava.
-- answer removed --
Literally militant atheism could never succeed.Stalin and Mao proved that. Active supression often strengthens the resolve of the devoted.
Modern atheism is about information. The Bible already carries all the material required to demolish faith in its tenets. All we need to do is raise that awareness and people come to the same almost inevitable conclusion that the Bbile is the product of aggressive, arrogant ignorance by ancient mysogynists.
Modern atheism is about information. The Bible already carries all the material required to demolish faith in its tenets. All we need to do is raise that awareness and people come to the same almost inevitable conclusion that the Bbile is the product of aggressive, arrogant ignorance by ancient mysogynists.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Will There Be A Christmas Top Of The...
Artists38 mins ago
