ChatterBank0 min ago
'Atheist Alliance.'
72 Answers
The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have been getting a rather bad press of late, at best confused, and at worst corrupt. Meanwhile atheism pursues its bloodless purity. The most determined atheist in Britain, the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, has spoken of his desire to "destroy Christianity". Shortly before Christopher Hitchens died, Dawkins presented him with "an award in my name, at the Atheist Alliance Convention". Surely even non-believers might experience a shudder at the news of an Atheist Alliance. Allied to what, a belief in non-belief?
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.
As an atheist I'd like to disassociate myself from Buenchico's remarks about holding all Christians as worthy of nothing but contempt. (What about, for example, pity for those without the ability to dissent?)
I do not see the difference between that and hate - what, apart from hate, would prompt one to spit upon another? -and I fear that Buenchico has given the example of hate-mongering that Arti has been asked for.
Sorry, Buenchico, but I think you went too far.
I do not see the difference between that and hate - what, apart from hate, would prompt one to spit upon another? -and I fear that Buenchico has given the example of hate-mongering that Arti has been asked for.
Sorry, Buenchico, but I think you went too far.
My My- this is hotting up! Lazy gun: To 'Archbishop' Dawkins, I refer to the 'Observer' last 18th December, to what do you refer? Hitler (brought up as a sort of catholic) WAS an atheist.
You, like most polemicists on this site, consist largely in positing a straw figure, in this case a false construct of me (a false construct because you refuse to assimilate exactly what I say) in order to only knock it down: as if in response to a notional theorem "A" you merely propose "Not A". but arguments of this kind contain no internal impetus to generate a thesis of their own. You seem to believe that falsification can be accomplished through specious 'evidence'. But this evidence need only be analysed so far as is necessary to demonstrate that it does not confirm theorem A. The fact that your 'opponents' theories do not explain everything is then somehow taken as falsifying their position.
You, like most polemicists on this site, consist largely in positing a straw figure, in this case a false construct of me (a false construct because you refuse to assimilate exactly what I say) in order to only knock it down: as if in response to a notional theorem "A" you merely propose "Not A". but arguments of this kind contain no internal impetus to generate a thesis of their own. You seem to believe that falsification can be accomplished through specious 'evidence'. But this evidence need only be analysed so far as is necessary to demonstrate that it does not confirm theorem A. The fact that your 'opponents' theories do not explain everything is then somehow taken as falsifying their position.
Khandro, do you miss the point deliberately? my post made no reference to the leaders of Germany and Italy being religious, indeed whether they were or not is quite irrelevant to my argument as I imagine you well know.
I think people understand perfectly what you say Khandro, they also understand your non too subtle sub-text. Do you never say exactly what you mean in clear language because you are not sure what you mean or is it because you don't want to commit yourself to a definite statement that can be contradicted or proven wrong?
I think people understand perfectly what you say Khandro, they also understand your non too subtle sub-text. Do you never say exactly what you mean in clear language because you are not sure what you mean or is it because you don't want to commit yourself to a definite statement that can be contradicted or proven wrong?
@Khandro - I stand by my comments in my post.
1.I think most of us here are familiar with what a strawman fallacy is, so probably do not need your rather laboured description.I leave it to the contributors here to determine which of us is guilty of constructing strawmen.
2. You continue to claim as fact that Hitler was an atheist. He simply was not. Atheism was not much better than Bolshevism in his eyes. Not a big fan of the organised religions granted, but he definitely had faith. More misrepresentation from you.
The implication of your post is that these leaders were atheist, and, by extension, initiated global war and/or attempted genocide in furtherance of their atheist beliefs - alternatively that if they were religious they would never have embarked on their various attempts at ethnic cleansing and domination.But being a fervent believer is no bar to attempted genocide, as any review of history will tell you..quite the contrary, in fact,fervently held conviction, faith in the supremacy of one particular brand of divinity has been the culprit in many instances of attempted genocide / ethnic cleansing.
3.You use the term "Archbishop of Atheism" in an attempt to generate an equivalence between atheism and religion. There is no equivalence, despite the attempts by you and others to attempt to assert that there is.
4. You misrepresent the tone of Dawkins comment about Christianity during his conversation with Hitchens by the tactic of selective quotation. The tone of the conversation can be easily gauged if you read the transcript of the conversation, which I posted. That just seems a mendacious tactic to me.
Probably the only thing that atheists might actually agree upon is that god is highly unlikely, that there is no empirical evidence to support such a being, and that fervently held faith or an uncritical, unquestioning belief in religion have caused and continue to cause huge harms to society.
And still those of faith attempt to elevate themselves to a moral high ground, or suggest that somehow they have a greater connectedness to the universe.... All the while misrepresenting the science, selectively quoting out of context, copying and pasting without attribution, and demanding that we all "respect their beliefs" and expect the rest of us to conform to their views of morality and sexuality.
The only thing that causes a shudder for me is the thought that religion is still being given special preference in the here and now.
1.I think most of us here are familiar with what a strawman fallacy is, so probably do not need your rather laboured description.I leave it to the contributors here to determine which of us is guilty of constructing strawmen.
2. You continue to claim as fact that Hitler was an atheist. He simply was not. Atheism was not much better than Bolshevism in his eyes. Not a big fan of the organised religions granted, but he definitely had faith. More misrepresentation from you.
The implication of your post is that these leaders were atheist, and, by extension, initiated global war and/or attempted genocide in furtherance of their atheist beliefs - alternatively that if they were religious they would never have embarked on their various attempts at ethnic cleansing and domination.But being a fervent believer is no bar to attempted genocide, as any review of history will tell you..quite the contrary, in fact,fervently held conviction, faith in the supremacy of one particular brand of divinity has been the culprit in many instances of attempted genocide / ethnic cleansing.
3.You use the term "Archbishop of Atheism" in an attempt to generate an equivalence between atheism and religion. There is no equivalence, despite the attempts by you and others to attempt to assert that there is.
4. You misrepresent the tone of Dawkins comment about Christianity during his conversation with Hitchens by the tactic of selective quotation. The tone of the conversation can be easily gauged if you read the transcript of the conversation, which I posted. That just seems a mendacious tactic to me.
Probably the only thing that atheists might actually agree upon is that god is highly unlikely, that there is no empirical evidence to support such a being, and that fervently held faith or an uncritical, unquestioning belief in religion have caused and continue to cause huge harms to society.
And still those of faith attempt to elevate themselves to a moral high ground, or suggest that somehow they have a greater connectedness to the universe.... All the while misrepresenting the science, selectively quoting out of context, copying and pasting without attribution, and demanding that we all "respect their beliefs" and expect the rest of us to conform to their views of morality and sexuality.
The only thing that causes a shudder for me is the thought that religion is still being given special preference in the here and now.
-- answer removed --
v_e // Birdie/Lazy Gun, what relevance does Hitler's religious belief or lack of have? Khandro's wrong about this, but surely right about Stalin. //
Khandro raised the familiar old argument that the atheist megalomaniacs were worse than any of the religious. It was easily shown that he got it wrong about Hitler.
To say he is surely right about Stalin misses the point. Are we to argue that Hilter or Stalin was worse on the basis of their religious position? Clearly their religion positions were irrelevant. Either way, a fifty percent hit rate certainly does not prove his claim.
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the true idols of these men were there own egos. Extreme narcissistic personality disorder.
The religious position is relevant when it comes to the people who simply let authority dictate morality and happily gassed millions of human beings because they were told it was the right thing to do. Just like religion. Just like the Hebrews under the guidance of Joshua.
Religion is becoming less and less relevant precisely because educated people won't be told what to think and won't be lectured on morality, especially by hypocrites who are really only interested in their own aggrandisement.
Khandro raised the familiar old argument that the atheist megalomaniacs were worse than any of the religious. It was easily shown that he got it wrong about Hitler.
To say he is surely right about Stalin misses the point. Are we to argue that Hilter or Stalin was worse on the basis of their religious position? Clearly their religion positions were irrelevant. Either way, a fifty percent hit rate certainly does not prove his claim.
Besides, as I pointed out earlier, the true idols of these men were there own egos. Extreme narcissistic personality disorder.
The religious position is relevant when it comes to the people who simply let authority dictate morality and happily gassed millions of human beings because they were told it was the right thing to do. Just like religion. Just like the Hebrews under the guidance of Joshua.
Religion is becoming less and less relevant precisely because educated people won't be told what to think and won't be lectured on morality, especially by hypocrites who are really only interested in their own aggrandisement.
I wasn't defending Khandro's argument, Beso; I reject it just as you do. I just don't see why atheists feel the need to argue the toss about it. Hitchens in God is not Great spends a whole chapter on Hitler and Stalin, quite poorly argued by his standards. I don't get it. The argument is not whether Christians are better or worse than Muslims/Hindus/atheists or whatever. Thank god/gods/goddesses or quantum mechanics that most people are decent. Let's leave the business of separating the human race into sheep and goats to the religious and to Buen Chico.
I attempted to describe my own views on moral education (not I think very different from your own) in an earlier post.
I attempted to describe my own views on moral education (not I think very different from your own) in an earlier post.
@v-e broadly I would agree with you wrt to the whole Hitler / Stalin thing.
The trope that Khandro and others have attempted to establish is that Hitler / Stalin were atheist, and that their actions / genocide / mass slaughter was either motivated in whole or in part by their atheism. A variation of this argument someotimes put forward by them is that had Hitler/ Stalin been devoutly faithful, the moral guidance they gained from their religion would have prevented such atrocities.
These arguments are often trotted out as an attempt to counter comments made regarding genocide / mass slaughter carried out by the faithful in the name of their deity - an equivalence if you will - and the narrative they are attempting to establish is that, whilst the religious might quite happily slaughter fellow humans by the bucketload in the name of their god, its all ok and alright because look! them pesky atheists do it too, in the name of atheism.
Its all nonsense, and as you point out, its largely irrelevant, but I do take exception to people misrepresenting the facts, as in the case with Khandro stating that Hitler was atheist.
Some historical episodes of ethnic cleansing or genocide can quite easily be associated, either in part or in whole by a religious motivation. The point I want to make is that I can think of no such event prompted specifically by atheism.
Were we to imagine a global society that had discarded religion as infantile, there would be less divisiveness,and therefore fewer reasons to justify murdering your neighbours. Khandro and others of the "posters spiritual" would have us believe that, even were religion to be discarded, humanity would still be out there happily slaughtering their own. Whilst such events may well still happen, there should be far fewer such episodes, and far fewer reasons for such events to occur in the first place.
The trope that Khandro and others have attempted to establish is that Hitler / Stalin were atheist, and that their actions / genocide / mass slaughter was either motivated in whole or in part by their atheism. A variation of this argument someotimes put forward by them is that had Hitler/ Stalin been devoutly faithful, the moral guidance they gained from their religion would have prevented such atrocities.
These arguments are often trotted out as an attempt to counter comments made regarding genocide / mass slaughter carried out by the faithful in the name of their deity - an equivalence if you will - and the narrative they are attempting to establish is that, whilst the religious might quite happily slaughter fellow humans by the bucketload in the name of their god, its all ok and alright because look! them pesky atheists do it too, in the name of atheism.
Its all nonsense, and as you point out, its largely irrelevant, but I do take exception to people misrepresenting the facts, as in the case with Khandro stating that Hitler was atheist.
Some historical episodes of ethnic cleansing or genocide can quite easily be associated, either in part or in whole by a religious motivation. The point I want to make is that I can think of no such event prompted specifically by atheism.
Were we to imagine a global society that had discarded religion as infantile, there would be less divisiveness,and therefore fewer reasons to justify murdering your neighbours. Khandro and others of the "posters spiritual" would have us believe that, even were religion to be discarded, humanity would still be out there happily slaughtering their own. Whilst such events may well still happen, there should be far fewer such episodes, and far fewer reasons for such events to occur in the first place.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Home & Garden13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.