Atheists, please condemn this...

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Before we begin, let me make something clear. This is NOT about the content of Atheism, this is about the conduct shown at this event.

This is really quite upsetting...

The "Reason Rally" the largest public organised event for atheists ever held, is proving to be the worst example of the excesses of the "new" atheism

Firstly, although they happily welcome the people from the Westborough Baptist Church to come along and engage with them, the organisers have said to the people of Ratio Christi "Make no mistake - you are not welcome at the rally". This is classic strawman. I can completely understand the desire of the atheists organising the event to not want to do a debate, but you can't have it both ways. You can't invite the crazies to make yourself look good and then deny the moderates.

 

Secondly, this

In his brief address, Dawkins encouraged fellow atheists to ridicule those who claim to be religious.

Exemplifying how he would approach religious persons, Dawkins said, "Do you really believe, for example if they're Catholic, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ?"

"Mock them, ridicule them in public," he urged. "Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion."

Making fun? Mocking? Really? This is acceptable behaviour? This is ENCOURAGED behaviour?

Thirdly, as part of their advertising campaign, the rally quoted Collossians 3:22 completely out of the broader context of the passage, trying to imply that the Bible was supportive of the slavery seen in the New World, with pictures of African slaves in neck chains.

Is this really acceptable. This, at the largest atheist event in the world ever held? This, at the event to show the world that its okay to be an atheist?

If you've been on this forum for any significant length of time, you know my position on matters of religion, but I have known plenty of passionate, engaging and incredibly polite and reasonable atheists on this forum. This isn't what I am seeing in this event.

Surely you would agree that this kind of thing isn't what atheism should be about.

[Happy Smiley Robot]

Such a hypocritical waste of time. If your 'faith' in atheism drives you to condemn others, mock them, force your ideals on them and act in an anti-social, self-assured manner you are worse than those you fight against - at least they have a slight claim to ignorance in the morality of their behaviour. The religious community is a little deluded in my opinion, but atheists like this are full blown crazy.

[Ash Phillips]

*sigh* This is why I don't do "New Atheism." I'm happy and proud to be a non-believer. I DO think that to one degree or another, belief in the supernatural IS ridiculous.

But thinking something is ridiculous, and actually ridiculing people are different things, if a Christian pastor told his/her congregation to go and humiliate atheists, the atheist community would be on them like a ton of shit. I also agree that a big problem with New Atheism is the amount of strawmanning that goes on. Extremists are targeted because they are easy targets.

It doesn't surprise me that Richard Dawkins would say something like that. While obviously an intelligent man, he's also an ass.

So yeah, I do condemn that.

On the other hand, Vertigo, skimming through your conversation with Joseph, I think you have a rose-tinted view of how atheism is perceived. If I remember right, you're from the UK like me, where it's not a big deal, but in the States, atheism isn't nearly as well received, it'd be political suicide to admit you're an atheist while running for office, in all but the most liberal of areas. I've heard and read horror stories about people being cut off from their family, accused of devil worship, and various other things for coming out as an atheist.

[John Eric Tiessen]

I don't think that it is really wise to expect that the Atheist community as a whole would condemn the actions/words of Richard Dawkins. He holds extremist viewpoints just like Christians that I know and are related to. If a group of Atheists feels that it is their obligation to free the world of Religion for the benefit of all mankind there is very little that we can do discourage them.They are on a mission of the highest moral importance to them, to defend reason and the infinite justice, purity and benevolence that it will give to humanity.

In short they are on a Crusade and like any philosophy they will have some success and have their way in some-places. Getting Atheism to be considered, by perhaps a significantly larger group of people, as a more sane answer to life than religion. In short what I am saying is that trying to condemn their actions would result in the same divisions among atheists as Christians feel when they try to unite and criticize a group like the West Burrow Baptist Church.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I don't think that it is really wise to expect that the Atheist community as a whole would condemn the actions/words of Richard Dawkins. He holds extremist viewpoints just like Christians that I know and are related to

I think if he attends the largest public event ever held for atheists, and writes one of the most popular books about atheism, then it is reasonable to call him a "leader" in the community. Extremists are on the fringe, Dawkins seems to be at the centre of the new Athiest movement.

[John Eric Tiessen]

Don't worry too much about it. He is effectively trying to get atheists to behave in the same way as Jesus Freaks. Those annoying teenagers who try and convert every single person they see to Christianity. The biggest problem with people like that is that they lack confidence in their own beliefs and so to make up for it try and prove to themselves and everyone else how 'holy' they are. I wouldn't worry about this too much because Dawkins' actions show either a political motivation or feelings of self-doubt. In any case, arguments that dissolve to slandering usually mean that the side doing the slandering doesn't have confidence in their beliefs. What you should be worrying about is how religious people will react to a more extreme, scared, version of atheism. If they react in kind it would just add fuel to the fire and would dissolve the situation even further.

[Michael Lee]

unfortunately atheism has its extremists too... to clarify yes as an Atheist i condemn this. 

[Kris]

Forgive the length of this response.

I’m afraid I cannot condemn Richard Dawkins’ words.
 

This discussion is symptomatic of his wider point; Religion cannot be criticised in ‘polite society’, no matter how ridiculous* its assertions are, due to a disproportionate respect within society. Dawkins gives the example of when people say they call themselves a Christian in England they say so because they ‘like to think of themselves as a good person.’

*The idea that a wafer literally being the body of Christ, or wine literally being his blood, is ridiculous. People can, and do, argue all day about which bits of religion are ridiculous or not, and many religious people respond by saying ‘well it isn’t supposed to be believed literally,’ forgetting to add ‘[because it is ridiculous].’

If someone were to advocate a position that is clearly untrue in the realm of politics, economics, history or physics, most people would mock them. Why, when it comes to religion do we not have the same rules? It’s because religion holds an authoritative, traditional place within our society. So as I see it, the point of the ‘new atheism’ is to challenge this authority that religion holds at large. There are many more atheists than the ‘extremists’ who shout out, but they are conditioned not to, are afraid to, because society demands respect for religion - sometimes regardless of its content.

The reaction here, of atheists too, show how far this respect for religious belief has permeated society – ‘I am a non-believer and I find supernatural belief ridiculous but thinking it and [acting] on it are two different things.’ It is sad, that people do think things to be ridiculous but are unable to criticise because the of the backlash that will come, and we’re still only talking about a social reaction, straying from social politeness, being considering a nasty person, being ostracised as ‘the atheist extremist’ – not physical threats or violence, which do come.

I also take exception to Richard Dawkins being called an extremist. Actually, scratch that, because it’s a fantastic juxtaposition; the extreme atheists, (Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) are considered extreme for being abrasive, blunt and ridiculing their opposition. The extreme side of religion is called so because it advocates violence, death and destruction to their opposition.

The extreme side of atheism wants to challenge belief and separate it from the state. The extreme side of religion wants no questions asked and to synthesise state power and religious organisation.

What was I supposed to be condemning again?

We live in an intellectually curious and rapidly expanding world, constantly pushing the boundaries to discover the edge, should there be one. People should be free to believe whatever they wish if they keep it to themselves, but if they wish to express that belief’s validity in public, and I would assume you would if you do believe it, then you should be prepared to justify it. This is why you see visible indignation and anger from Atheists about being unable to say what they think or to challenge what others think.

 

 

I have taken so much time on this point, that I barely have time to talk about the letter and invitation of the WBC. It’s a piece of political manipulation of Machiavellian character. It should indeed be condemned as predictable, bland and avoiding the challenge.. but as I understand it that isn’t the point of the rally. So it find this to be only media manipulation by the organisers.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I’m afraid I cannot condemn Richard Dawkins’ words.

I think you don't understand the nature of transubstantiation, if you think it is as absurd as you seem to believe. It is much more complex than the wine literally turning. Here's some quotes on the subject.

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of wheat bread and grape wine changes into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before…"Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

You might not agree with the belief, but unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist, you cannot and should not ridicule this belief.

You can disagree, you just should not ridicule.

[Kris]

Firstly, I will address the things that actually dealt with my point, and then the distraction.

"You might not agree with the belief, but unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist, you cannot and should not ridicule this belief."

There are 2 points to this.
First you claim the privileged position of religious belief again. Why can it not be ridiculed if one finds it ridiculous? If I believe I am a Unicorn - does that not deserve ridicule? It is only because it is religious that ridicule and criticism is objected to. That is the whole point.

Secondly "Unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist." If every proposition requires proof that it is NOT true, and you believe it until it is proven so, then you must believe in every deity that is written about. The idea that you cannot disprove something so you must believe it is nonsense. It is ridiculous because you would have to believe so many contradictory things simply because they cannot be disproved. That position does not make sense.

Now to the distraction, a common accusation thrown by both sides in these kinds of debates; "You don't understand..."

If Transubstantiation is not that what I described in my previous post, then that is not what I find ridiculous. I didn't even use the word Transubstantiation. I do find the idea of wafer and wine literally being Jesus ridiculous, but I've met people who say they believe that so I know what Dawkins is talking about. The ridiculous stuff is ridiculous. Claim whatever you like as above me, out of my irreligious understanding or whatever. It only shows an avoidance of the actual topic, and considering you criticise the setting up of straw men in your original post, it seems hypocritical of you to do so now. I will take it as ridicule of my post.

What I am really interested in is the power of religion in the world that really matters; this one. I would not wish social or political dominance of beliefs to remain unquestioned. Regardless of whether they are religious or not. 

Tradition, offence and popularity are not reasons for why you shouldn't ridicule something. Perhaps it can be impolite, quite hurtful at times, offensive even, but we do not have a right to NOT be offended. Let people behave as they wish within the law, let those who ridicule to do so, and hold your own debate and beliefs with those you should wish to. I wouldn't like to offend anyone, but I also wouldn't wish to restrict free speech of anyone either. Criticism of religion should be allowed, because criticism of anything should be allowed.

The reason I cannot condemn Dawkins' words is because he is opposing this huge social pressure to conform to and NOT to criticise religious sensibility and authority. You may not agree with him, you may be offended by him. But he can ridicule anyone he likes. You will undoubtedly judge him as he judges you, but I really don't think it was meant maliciously.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

First you claim the privileged position of religious belief again. Why can it not be ridiculed if one finds it ridiculous?

Ridicule is name calling. You can simply say "I don't believe". It has reasons, you might disagree with them, but it isn't without reason, therefore is not worthy of ridicule.

Secondly "Unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist." If every proposition requires proof that it is NOT true, and you believe it until it is proven so, then you must believe in every deity that is written about.

The point I was making is that the belief is not of the level of absurdity requiring ridicule. Ridicule is reserved for something very differnt. Something logically contradictory, something fudimentally impossible etc, that's what you have to ridicule. This isn't the case with this belief.

Tradition, offence and popularity are not reasons for why you shouldn't ridicule something

No, I agree. But that isn't the reason. The reason you shouldn't ridicule it is because it has reasons. You may not agree with them, but they have reasons. And unless you can demonstrate them as being actually impossible, all you can do is disagree.

You will undoubtedly judge him as he judges you, but I really don't think it was meant maliciously.

I don't really see that. He encouraged people to publicly ridicule others. If that's not malicious, I don't know what is.

[Kris]

You can simply say "I don't believe". It has reasons, you might disagree with them, but it isn't without reason, therefore is not worthy of ridicule.

 

There could be any number of reasons why a person might believe they are a unicorn. That does not mean it is not ridiculous. Without being able to prove it to someone else, without having a good reason for believing it, it really doesn't matter about any other reasons such as; tradition, preference, comfort, popularity or desire. Lots of cultures have very silly secular traditions - doesn't make them not ridiculous.

This strange belief that you can be diametrically opposed in beliefs but not allowed to ridicule something is the worst kind of political correct, self-congratulatory culture that has spread around. Conflict of ideas breeds progress. The only reason to stifle debate, discussion and criticism is to maintain the status quo - or in other words, religion's privaledged position within society. Sometimes criticism does degenerate into full blown ridicule and contempt, but that is a necessary evil of having free speech and lively, passionate discussion across such a wide collection of people.

The only reason that religions in general have to adopt this new position of 'anyone can believe whatever they like' (Or 'live and let live') with non-belief is because it has been pushed back by those who demand evidence and reason be allowed their share in society. Imagine this kind of 'new atheism' 100 years, or even 50 years ago? Furthermore imagine what 'the moderate' would have believed 100 or 50 years ago.

Something logically contradictory, something fudimentally impossible etc, that's what you have to ridicule.

I don't know about have to ridicule, but I agree that those are the sort of things that if pointed out to be contradictory, impossible etc.. and still believed by people, will probably be ridiculed by those trying to reason with them. And your view here points out that it is exactly not the ridicule of something ridiculous that you object to, but rather you feel that religious belief, perhaps Transubstantiation, is not ridiculous.

In other words, it is not the action of ridiculing others you object to, but that religion has been ridiculed. As I have stated in every post, people should be free to say and ridicule whatever they like. Furthermore you said ‘have to’ ridicule. I’m interested in what you mean by this. Do you mean you should ridicule people with logically contradictory, fundamentally impossible beliefs? Because then surely, your position is not different from Dawkins? Except as I pointed out, you disagree on what is contradictory and impossible.

He encouraged people to publicly ridicule others. If that's not malicious, I don't know what is.

Perhaps I should give you a quick few facts about religious maliciousness then?
How does, raising the money for the Sistine Chapel from special sale of indulgences sound? (That is, promises for time out of purgatory for money)
How does burning people at the stake for reading the bible in English instead of Latin sound? (As Sir Thomas Moore did, a long time ago I know, but he was only canonised in 1935!)
How does the current Pope telling people that condoms spread AIDS/HIV sound?

And never mind about the other examples spread throughout this thread. But perhaps all these acts are not those of 'moderate practitioners.' Well, I disagree but let's accept that point for one moment. Because what is malicious, is trying to restrict what people can say about certain organisations, about certain beliefs, about certain people. Let the debate flow and you have a thriving society. To stifle debate and restrict speech is the malicious act. And this is exactly what is happening! Is anyone encouraged to criticise, or should I say allowed to criticise religious belief? No. Society is encouraged not to do so. Being discouraged from criticism is much more malicious than ridiculing something.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

There could be any number of reasons why a person might believe they are a unicorn. That does not mean it is not ridiculous.

It would depend upon the exact nature of their belief. Something that you don't seem to appreciate.

This strange belief that you can be diametrically opposed in beliefs but not allowed to ridicule something is the worst kind of political correct, self-congratulatory culture that has spread around.

No, it isn't. You can disagree, point out the flaws, but ridicule is something fundamentally unkind.

Conflict of ideas breeds progress.

Ridicule =/= Conflict of ideas. Debate = conflict of ideas. A debate that the athiests seem to be loosing, what with worldwide growth in religion, and the unwillingness of many atheists to debate leading religious academics.

Perhaps I should give you a quick few facts about religious maliciousness then?
How does, raising the money for the Sistine Chapel from special sale of indulgences sound? (That is, promises for time out of purgatory for money)
How does burning people at the stake for reading the bible in English instead of Latin sound? (As Sir Thomas Moore did, a long time ago I know, but he was only canonised in 1935!)

Poor debating. Shall I bring up the communists and the Nazis as athiests doing horrible things. The past isn't what I am arguing about. I am talking about NOW. 

Also, you are dodging the arguemnt. Do you accept such a thing is malicous or not.

How does the current Pope telling people that condoms spread AIDS/HIV sound?

Proof? All I see is that he said it was not the best way to solve the problem. That's his opinion. I don't agree, but I don't see him saying that condom's will actively make it worse, except in so far as the myth spreads that condoms are 100% effective at stopping the spread of HIV.

Let the debate flow and you have a thriving society. To stifle debate and restrict speech is the malicious act.

I have no problem with debate. I have a problem with ridicule.

Is anyone encouraged to criticise, or should I say allowed to criticise religious belief? No.

Erm, I see no law stopping you. You will probably be criticised for doing so, but that's free speech.

Society is encouraged not to do so. Being discouraged from criticism is much more malicious than ridiculing something.

Because religion is, at its heart, a good thing. And people hold it dear. So you can examine it, and criticise it in an accademic context, but outright ridicule is unkind.