London Drinker (Volume 46,No. 2)
Crosswords2 mins 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.
@Khandro -
"2his thread has wobbled, but it has shown, which is as I suspected, that there is no more conformity among atheists than there is among the religious, and that the Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly-up"
What yardstick are you applying to declare that atheism is "belly up"? By most measures, that analysis simply does not hold.
Whilst we are on the subject, I know you like to reduce Atheism to a church of believers, led by just one person, Richard Dawkins, but again, this is simply not true. The Atheist Alliance is not a Dawkins movement either, although he is probably an influential member.
You suspect there is little conformity amongst atheists? Conformity about what issue precisely? We have told you all along that conformity amongst atheists exists only inasmuch as they do not believe in a god - they may well differ a lot on political, social and cultural issues - so its hardly a display of original thinking worthy of the "I suspect" part of your sentence!
You continue to attempt to achieve an equivalence of belief between Atheism and Religion. Hence this repeated trope that Atheists are led by Dawkins, hence the "Archbishop of Atheism" quote in your OP. Its a deliberately misleading term, used by deists and those sympathetic to that worldview to suggest that a atheism is a belief, just like a belief in religion. You have been told, repeatedly, that this is simply not true, but its evident from your posting that you continue to think this and repeat the same thing. Its tiresome. Tiresome could also be applied to defining Hitler as an Atheist, and then going on to imply that, regardless of what evidence was presented to show otherwise, you will continue to hold that view. Being dogmatic about a point of view when the evidence suggests otherwise is a very religious thing to do.
You also, in your OP, described Dawkins as having a desire to "destroy christianity". Taken out of context, as you have, the term seems extremely inflammatory - which is, of course, why you use it - but when you read the transcript of the conversation between Dawkins and Hitchens, (which I posted in an early reply) people can see for themselves that it was used as a figure of speech. Everytime you post about atheism, I get the sense that its as a defensive reflex, and you appear to have an obsession with equating atheism with religion - "its just another belief system".
Religion depends on faith. Faith means belief in the absence of evidence. Holding such beliefs to be true when all the evidence suggests otherwise, is irrational behaviour. The consequences of such irrationality can be seen in blasphemy laws, where people attempt to defend their idea, their belief, from criticism or ridicule.Other equally serious consequences are the actions of the fundamentalist minority who take extreme action in defence of their religion - assassinating Prime Ministers in Israel, for instance, or killing doctors who work in abortion clinics, or pronouncing jihad on authors, or burning books, or banning dancing,...... the list of religiously inspired laws and edicts to control people and the way they wish to live their lives is endless.
This is the irrationality that needs to be stopped.
"2his thread has wobbled, but it has shown, which is as I suspected, that there is no more conformity among atheists than there is among the religious, and that the Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly-up"
What yardstick are you applying to declare that atheism is "belly up"? By most measures, that analysis simply does not hold.
Whilst we are on the subject, I know you like to reduce Atheism to a church of believers, led by just one person, Richard Dawkins, but again, this is simply not true. The Atheist Alliance is not a Dawkins movement either, although he is probably an influential member.
You suspect there is little conformity amongst atheists? Conformity about what issue precisely? We have told you all along that conformity amongst atheists exists only inasmuch as they do not believe in a god - they may well differ a lot on political, social and cultural issues - so its hardly a display of original thinking worthy of the "I suspect" part of your sentence!
You continue to attempt to achieve an equivalence of belief between Atheism and Religion. Hence this repeated trope that Atheists are led by Dawkins, hence the "Archbishop of Atheism" quote in your OP. Its a deliberately misleading term, used by deists and those sympathetic to that worldview to suggest that a atheism is a belief, just like a belief in religion. You have been told, repeatedly, that this is simply not true, but its evident from your posting that you continue to think this and repeat the same thing. Its tiresome. Tiresome could also be applied to defining Hitler as an Atheist, and then going on to imply that, regardless of what evidence was presented to show otherwise, you will continue to hold that view. Being dogmatic about a point of view when the evidence suggests otherwise is a very religious thing to do.
You also, in your OP, described Dawkins as having a desire to "destroy christianity". Taken out of context, as you have, the term seems extremely inflammatory - which is, of course, why you use it - but when you read the transcript of the conversation between Dawkins and Hitchens, (which I posted in an early reply) people can see for themselves that it was used as a figure of speech. Everytime you post about atheism, I get the sense that its as a defensive reflex, and you appear to have an obsession with equating atheism with religion - "its just another belief system".
Religion depends on faith. Faith means belief in the absence of evidence. Holding such beliefs to be true when all the evidence suggests otherwise, is irrational behaviour. The consequences of such irrationality can be seen in blasphemy laws, where people attempt to defend their idea, their belief, from criticism or ridicule.Other equally serious consequences are the actions of the fundamentalist minority who take extreme action in defence of their religion - assassinating Prime Ministers in Israel, for instance, or killing doctors who work in abortion clinics, or pronouncing jihad on authors, or burning books, or banning dancing,...... the list of religiously inspired laws and edicts to control people and the way they wish to live their lives is endless.
This is the irrationality that needs to be stopped.
These is more conformity among atheists than the religious simply because atheists are relying on the same observable evidence to draw our conclusions. It isn't about following a scripted dogma.
The religious use "interpretations" of a variety of "holy" texts that are contradictory not only among themselves but within the verses of a single text.
The religious use "interpretations" of a variety of "holy" texts that are contradictory not only among themselves but within the verses of a single text.
LG; You should have gone to Specsavers! How can you paste in my own statement and then beneath it misquote me? I, as everyone can see, said that Dawkins' 'Atheist Alliance' is belly up, not atheism.
As to your question; //You suspect there is little conformity amongst atheists? Conformity about what issue precisely?// This thread has shown that there is a wide divergence amongst atheists in their tolerance to others who hold different beliefs.
I have now 3 times told you that my my reference comes from the Observer of last December and you have not confirmed that this is where yours comes from. Do you deny that Dawkins (who is an embarrassment to many intelligent atheists) said that he wanted to destroy Christianity? Also; you assert; //Religion depends on faith. Faith means belief in the absence of evidence// this is false! challenge me to demonstrate it and I shall.
As to your question; //You suspect there is little conformity amongst atheists? Conformity about what issue precisely?// This thread has shown that there is a wide divergence amongst atheists in their tolerance to others who hold different beliefs.
I have now 3 times told you that my my reference comes from the Observer of last December and you have not confirmed that this is where yours comes from. Do you deny that Dawkins (who is an embarrassment to many intelligent atheists) said that he wanted to destroy Christianity? Also; you assert; //Religion depends on faith. Faith means belief in the absence of evidence// this is false! challenge me to demonstrate it and I shall.
Khandro - “... People who are "afflicted with an almost pathological intolerance", should be ever-vigilant that their condition isn't intensifying. :-)...”
As you well know, you deliberately foreshortened my above statement to leave out five very important little words: “... of people who tell lies...”.
How very apposite that you should chose to do so. It speaks volumes.
As you well know, you deliberately foreshortened my above statement to leave out five very important little words: “... of people who tell lies...”.
How very apposite that you should chose to do so. It speaks volumes.
Khandro - “... //You suspect there is little conformity amongst atheists? Conformity about what issue precisely?// This thread has shown that there is a wide divergence amongst atheists in their tolerance to others who hold different beliefs...”
Oh dear. You've really tried to fudge this one. Of course there will always be debate and discussion amongst atheists about the amount of tolerance that should be shown to certain religious people and/or groups who would happily deprive every single person (whether they be religious or not) of their right to speak their mind. This does not indicate a lack of conformity about atheism amongst atheists. By suggesting such a thing you might have well have said that there is no conformity between atheists because some of them vote labour and some vote conservative. To say you've misunderstood this issue is a massive understatement.
For your information the Atheist Alliance exists to, “... [promote] a secular world where public policy, scientific inquiry and education are not influenced by religious beliefs, but based upon sound reasoning, rationality and evidence...”.
What I find truly depressing is that you apparently 'shudder' at the thought of such an organisation with these humanistic goals.
Oh dear. You've really tried to fudge this one. Of course there will always be debate and discussion amongst atheists about the amount of tolerance that should be shown to certain religious people and/or groups who would happily deprive every single person (whether they be religious or not) of their right to speak their mind. This does not indicate a lack of conformity about atheism amongst atheists. By suggesting such a thing you might have well have said that there is no conformity between atheists because some of them vote labour and some vote conservative. To say you've misunderstood this issue is a massive understatement.
For your information the Atheist Alliance exists to, “... [promote] a secular world where public policy, scientific inquiry and education are not influenced by religious beliefs, but based upon sound reasoning, rationality and evidence...”.
What I find truly depressing is that you apparently 'shudder' at the thought of such an organisation with these humanistic goals.
@Khandro
You still make empty assertions, with no reference to anything substantive.
What are you talking about when you claim that "Dawkins Atheist Alliance" is belly up? Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but that is hardly surprising, given your lack of clarity.
Certainly Atheism is not dead, its alive and kicking, harder than ever. Dawkins himself seems his usual active self, and as forthright with his opinion. The Atheist Alliance International is an actual organisation with a growing membership and range of activities, so thats hardly going belly up.And that organisation does not belong to Richard Dawkins.
You complain I misquote you - but you still fail to make your self clear! I know its difficult for you, but do try - when you talk about "Atheist Alliance going belly up" - what, precisely, is your meaning? And, by what measure are you drawing that conclusion?
Do you mean:
1. Dawkins' influence and argument is going belly up?
2.An organisation of Dawkins, called the "Atheist Alliance", is going belly up?
3. The seperate, established organisation called " Atheist Alliance International" is going belly up?
4. A general comment that the alliance between atheists is going belly up?
Hint - all of the above have different meanings.
Re: Dawkins and your ongoing misquotation. You may very well have taken the phrase from the Observer, as you claim, and I am not disputing that. I have told you, repeatedly, that the phrase, as used by you, was as a result of selective editing, from an interview between Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, whilst Dawkins was doing a guest editing spot for the 2011 Christmas Edition of the "New Statesman".
This selective editing and misquotation totally changes the tone of Dawkins original comment, to make it sound like a kind of rallying call, a kind of atheist jihad - and of course, that's what the faith heads wish to insinuate.
Tone and context is everything, and one can see from the transcript that this was not Dawkins meaning. His meaning is rather less dramatic, and reflects the concerns of many - were we hypothetically able to reason christians out of their faith, we have the more difficult and potentially more frightening task of doing the same for the followers of Islam.
In the first link there are some excerpts from interview, from the New Stateman itself.
http://
For the transcript of the section of the interview where this selective misquotation occurred ,there is this article, taken from the Daily Mail:
"the Prof gets this in edgeways: 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?"
http://
This article is written by the Rev. George Pitcher, and, unsurprisingly, given his vocation, displays a bias. He himself leaps on the conflation - "Richard Dawkins calls for the Destruction of Christianity!", but acknowledges that Dawkins used it as a figure of speech. He still goes on to try and make political capital out of the selective quotation, but his attempt is clear for all to see, and fairly crass.
Type "Dawkins Destroy Christianity" into Google, and you will find pages of references where the selective misquotation is enthusiastically repeated by bloggers, writers and news organisations sympathetic to faith, all of whom portray Prof Dawkins as calling for a kind of atheist jihad against christianity - Which is the way I think you understand it, and the way you intended it to be read.
Not the first time that someone has been quoted out of context, I am sure, and probably not the last. I just want you to acknowledge the fact.
Faith - Where irrationality is a positive virtue.
You still make empty assertions, with no reference to anything substantive.
What are you talking about when you claim that "Dawkins Atheist Alliance" is belly up? Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, but that is hardly surprising, given your lack of clarity.
Certainly Atheism is not dead, its alive and kicking, harder than ever. Dawkins himself seems his usual active self, and as forthright with his opinion. The Atheist Alliance International is an actual organisation with a growing membership and range of activities, so thats hardly going belly up.And that organisation does not belong to Richard Dawkins.
You complain I misquote you - but you still fail to make your self clear! I know its difficult for you, but do try - when you talk about "Atheist Alliance going belly up" - what, precisely, is your meaning? And, by what measure are you drawing that conclusion?
Do you mean:
1. Dawkins' influence and argument is going belly up?
2.An organisation of Dawkins, called the "Atheist Alliance", is going belly up?
3. The seperate, established organisation called " Atheist Alliance International" is going belly up?
4. A general comment that the alliance between atheists is going belly up?
Hint - all of the above have different meanings.
Re: Dawkins and your ongoing misquotation. You may very well have taken the phrase from the Observer, as you claim, and I am not disputing that. I have told you, repeatedly, that the phrase, as used by you, was as a result of selective editing, from an interview between Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, whilst Dawkins was doing a guest editing spot for the 2011 Christmas Edition of the "New Statesman".
This selective editing and misquotation totally changes the tone of Dawkins original comment, to make it sound like a kind of rallying call, a kind of atheist jihad - and of course, that's what the faith heads wish to insinuate.
Tone and context is everything, and one can see from the transcript that this was not Dawkins meaning. His meaning is rather less dramatic, and reflects the concerns of many - were we hypothetically able to reason christians out of their faith, we have the more difficult and potentially more frightening task of doing the same for the followers of Islam.
In the first link there are some excerpts from interview, from the New Stateman itself.
http://
For the transcript of the section of the interview where this selective misquotation occurred ,there is this article, taken from the Daily Mail:
"the Prof gets this in edgeways: 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?"
http://
This article is written by the Rev. George Pitcher, and, unsurprisingly, given his vocation, displays a bias. He himself leaps on the conflation - "Richard Dawkins calls for the Destruction of Christianity!", but acknowledges that Dawkins used it as a figure of speech. He still goes on to try and make political capital out of the selective quotation, but his attempt is clear for all to see, and fairly crass.
Type "Dawkins Destroy Christianity" into Google, and you will find pages of references where the selective misquotation is enthusiastically repeated by bloggers, writers and news organisations sympathetic to faith, all of whom portray Prof Dawkins as calling for a kind of atheist jihad against christianity - Which is the way I think you understand it, and the way you intended it to be read.
Not the first time that someone has been quoted out of context, I am sure, and probably not the last. I just want you to acknowledge the fact.
Faith - Where irrationality is a positive virtue.
Beso: I think that perhaps you did not read my initial post.
You say, "Arti....... If you want to learn about hate just look to the words of any of the Abrahamic holy books and recognise the unashamed and particular vitriolic hate encompassed by God."
If you read my post again maybe you will see that you are 'preaching to the converted'.
You say, "Arti....... If you want to learn about hate just look to the words of any of the Abrahamic holy books and recognise the unashamed and particular vitriolic hate encompassed by God."
If you read my post again maybe you will see that you are 'preaching to the converted'.
Latest Posts
Using Mould Killller Spray On Car
Motoring4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
News13 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.