Atheism

[Jerry_B]

I'm not misrepresenting what you've said - I'm just asking for clarity. You still haven't provided any details as to who these people are, and/or what groups or organisations are involved in the politicking. That's all I want to know!

 

[Quake42]

I think we're seeing more atheist campaigns and press articles though, against poor government decisions (such as Blair's support for faith schools) than we used to, and I think that is helped by social networking. I also think this is a very good thing.

Yes - I think the increase in vocal atheism is purely reactive, to the faith schools issue as you say and also the appeasement of the Mullahs via laws on religious hatred etc. Laws that have of course been jumped on by extremists of other faiths who are keen to close down criticism of their particular belief system.

I'm not misrepresenting what you've said - I'm just asking for clarity. You still haven't provided any details as to who these people are, and/or what groups or organisations are involved in the politicking. That's all I want to know!

I can't see that there are any. There are no mainstream political groups that are clearly atheist in nature and only a very small number of admittedly high profile individuals shouting about this stuff.

On the other hand government policies on education, abortion, euthanasia etc continue to be made with one fearful eye on religious fanatics of all types.

 

[colpepper1]

I'm not misrepresenting what you've said - I'm just asking for clarity. You still haven't provided any details as to who these people are, and/or what groups or organisations are involved in the politicking. That's all I want to know!

This clip shows the kind of thing I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM
Presumably someone must have organised it. BTW, please don't suggest I'm against such rallies, I'm asking what the aims of its organisers are. Dawkins talks of us and we so presumably he must have some idea of what we and us represent.

 

[rynner2]

The debate would be more interesting (IMO) if it moved away from 'why do you say that?' to atheists who perceive themselves as politically motivated coming out with changes they would like to see in the status quo and we could debate those changes and their implications. The alternative is vocal secularity is just hot air and soapboxes, a safety valve for the disaffected.

Well, give us more detail on these atheists and their agenda that we can debate, otherwise you're just contributing to the 'hot air' yourself!

 

[Mythopoeika]

This clip shows the kind of thing I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

Great video!
Thanks for posting that.

 

[colpepper1]

This clip shows the kind of thing I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

Great video!
Thanks for posting that.

Any idea who the we he's referring to is?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I'm not misrepresenting what you've said - I'm just asking for clarity. You still haven't provided any details as to who these people are, and/or what groups or organisations are involved in the politicking. That's all I want to know!

This clip shows the kind of thing I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM
Presumably someone must have organised it. BTW, please don't suggest I'm against such rallies, I'm asking what the aims of its organisers are. Dawkins talks of us and we so presumably he must have some idea of what we and us represent.

Before even clicking on this link I knew what it would be - the occasion when Dawkins spoke at a rally concerned with a taxpayer funded visit (with all due pomp and reverence) of a man suspected of harbouring paedophiles amongst other things. If you were going to make a case for atheists according a religious grouping the same respect it would a secular one then this is surely it.

It also hardly has to be pointed out that Dawkins was responding to an attack by 'militant Christianity' (equating moderate atheists as Nazis in waiting, if you like). Regardless this is an example of a purely reactive stance - if an atheist was arguing for the extension of the greased palm of friendship to someone guilty of such evasions you would hardly have to imagine what the response would be from the religious apologists of the conservative press (and a lot more besides).

 

[Jerry_B]

This clip shows the kind of thing I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM
Presumably someone must have organised it. BTW, please don't suggest I'm against such rallies, I'm asking what the aims of its organisers are. Dawkins talks of us and we so presumably he must have some idea of what we and us represent.

Ok, so that's Dawkins - but we know who he is and what he thinks. That still leaves out whoever else you think is pushing this agenda in some concerted manner.

Sorry, but your case still seems a bit vague. After all, we can't assume that everyone at the rally or it's organisers were exactly like Dawkins. Which other figures have come forward with a similar stance? And are they part of some wider agenda? That rally, after all, was about a specific event.

 

[colpepper1]

Presumably all the people on the podium were roughly in line with Dawkins views. Who organised it? Was it an anti-paedophile rally, or representing the British tax payer funding visits by overseas dignitaries, or a humanist inspired rally, New Scientist readers? I don't know.

edit: I've never visited a website concerned with any of the above organisations nor a vatican one, nor do I possess a TV, so I have no idea.

 

[Jerry_B]

So therefore it's not a good illustration of a wider aetheist front - that point you still have to show.

 

[colpepper1]

So therefore it's not a good illustration of a wider aetheist front - that point you still have to show.

Do you know who organised the rally? Google tells me it was the central London Humanist group.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

So therefore it's not a good illustration of a wider aetheist front - that point you still have to show.

Do you know who organised the rally? Google tells me it was the central London Humanist group.

A mixture - many atheists, some gay groups (including a gay priest), feminists and even some doctors:

http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/supporters/

Here's why it happened:

"The final Rally will be held in the proximity of our democratic Government, opposite Downing Street, to highlight our opposition to the State Visit as opposed to a Pastoral Visit like the one of the previous Pope. "

So, are we still talking about totalitarianism closing down the rights of the religious or are we talking about totalitarianism closing down the rights of the religious to spend the cash of the non-religious on someone that many of them regard to be a criminal conspirator?

 

[colpepper1]

I've just found this from The Rationalist Association:

Stated core aims are 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race by means of the advancement of rationalism and humanism', and 'the advancement of education and in particular the study of rationalism and humanism and the dissemination of knowledge of their principles'.

I can imagine that having wide ranging implications, especially 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race...'

from the University of Cambridge Atheist site:

'New Atheism
Over the past couple of years there has been an unexpected revival of strident atheism of a sort not seen in Europe or America for over half a century. Despite the claims of historians that that the old days of militant atheism are over and the previously sharp distinction between atheist and believer can be expected to be effaced still further in the postmodern climate of general relativism and indifferentism, the current 'New Atheists' seem to be determined to buck the trend...'

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I've just found this from The Rationalist Association:

Stated core aims are 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race by means of the advancement of rationalism and humanism', and 'the advancement of education and in particular the study of rationalism and humanism and the dissemination of knowledge of their principles'.

I can imagine that having wide ranging implications, especially 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race...'

So how does this organisation, with around a tenth of the number of members it had 50 years ago (and currently with less members than this board) represent a wave of proselytising atheism?

from the University of Cambridge Atheist site:

'New Atheism
Over the past couple of years there has been an unexpected revival of strident atheism of a sort not seen in Europe or America for over half a century. Despite the claims of historians that that the old days of militant atheism are over and the previously sharp distinction between atheist and believer can be expected to be effaced still further in the postmodern climate of general relativism and indifferentism, the current 'New Atheists' seem to be determined to buck the trend...'

And how does this subjective description, by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, advance your arguments about intolerant totalitarian atheism's escalating crusade beyond mere conjecture?

 

[colpepper1]

I've just found this from The Rationalist Association:

Stated core aims are 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race by means of the advancement of rationalism and humanism', and 'the advancement of education and in particular the study of rationalism and humanism and the dissemination of knowledge of their principles'.

I can imagine that having wide ranging implications, especially 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race...'

So how does this organisation, with around a tenth of the number of members it had 50 years ago (and currently with less members than this board) represent a wave of proselytising atheism?

from the University of Cambridge Atheist site:

'New Atheism
Over the past couple of years there has been an unexpected revival of strident atheism of a sort not seen in Europe or America for over half a century. Despite the claims of historians that that the old days of militant atheism are over and the previously sharp distinction between atheist and believer can be expected to be effaced still further in the postmodern climate of general relativism and indifferentism, the current 'New Atheists' seem to be determined to buck the trend...'

And how does this subjective description, by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, advance your arguments about intolerant totalitarian atheism's escalating crusade beyond mere conjecture?

It doesn't. But then I didn't say atheism was totalitarian. I said imposing the will of disbelievers onto believers, or vice versa, by political means is totalitarian. I'm not arguing for a theocracy, I'm a Western liberal democrat, with small letters and a suspicion of big ideas. I was responding to Jerry B's assertion there is no evidence of atheist opinion being mobilised politically. Those links would disagree with his conclusions.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It doesn't. But then I didn't say atheism was totalitarian. I said imposing the will of disbelievers onto believers, or vice versa, by political means is totalitarian. I'm not arguing for a theocracy, I'm a Western liberal democrat, with small letters and a suspicion of big ideas.

I'm aware of that as you have expounded upon this theme to a considerable extent (puritans, agendas, totalitarianism etc). I had assumed you were citing these various references in relation to this claim (that seems like a reasonable reading of the last couple of pages of this thread). Is that not the case and if it isn't what example would you cite to support the claim of the totalitarian nature of this atheism which you describe?

 

[Jerry_B]

I was responding to Jerry B's assertion there is no evidence of atheist opinion being mobilised politically. Those links would disagree with his conclusions.

But, as Ted has pointed out, the links you've provided are problematic. They don't suggest some wide-ranging concerted effort of any great scale. Thus far we still seem to be dealing with isolated cases, and not some sort of big plan or organisational scheme which you seemed to have suggested thus far.

 

[colpepper1]

Your statement is worded pejoratively. There is no way of knowing what the limits of politically motivated atheists are. My examples show there are such things and some use terms like 'the mental and moral improvement of the human race' and 'strident atheism' and 'militant atheism'. That suggests the words have common currency and the public can be expected to understand the connotations of them. Unpicking what moral improvement and strident mean just sends the debate into stand by mode.

I said earlier that if atheists who have a political dimension were to be explicit about the scope of those aims we could have a more focused conversation.

 

[colpepper1]

the links you've provided are problematic.

To you maybe, not to me. They were the first two links I came across, hardly cherry picking the opinions of swivel-eyed nutcases, to mix a metaphor.

 

[Jerry_B]

But you still haven't shown, as I keep saying, that any of this is part of some big plan or movement. Various groups of people say various things on-line, but whether that actually amounts to anything of substance is questionable.

Are any groups actually talking the talk and walking the walk? So far it all seems very small scale and not some earth-shaking large united movement hell-bent on radical aetheism.

 

[colpepper1]

But you still haven't shown, as I keep saying, that any of this is part of some big plan or movement. Various groups of people say various things on-line, but whether that actually amounts to anything of substance is questionable.

Are any groups actually talking the talk and walking the walk? So far it all seems very small scale and not some earth-shaking large united movement hell-bent on radical aetheism.

I'm a guy on the internet responding to other guys on the internet. The mode of discourse has a particular feel, it's not a court of law, a pub brawl or a sixth form debating society. I believe Dawkins is a media loving big head who stretches the limits of science into any area he chooses and hopes people won't notice. If enough people are motivated to respond for or against, the debate goes on, moderators allowing.

A sufficient number of internet posters use collective plural pronouns when discussing atheism to detect mutuality of response. I don't have the time nor inclination to amass examples of those responses, and they'd almost certainly be dismissed as 'problematic links' anyway. There is a political dimension to atheism, proven to my satisfaction. I want to know whether the numerous people using 'us' or 'we' align themselves with the explicit aims of the type mentioned.

 

[Quake42]

I'm a guy on the internet responding to other guys on the internet. The mode of discourse has a particular feel, it's not a court of law, a pub brawl or a sixth form debating society. I believe Dawkins is a media loving big head who stretches the limits of science into any area he chooses and hopes people won't notice.

That may well be true. But you're back to complaining about Dawkins as an individual. You have provided no evidence of organised, political, atheist groups of any size. As others have pointed out, objection to the Pope's state visit came from various individuals and organisations with myriad viewpoints. The direction of politcal travel in recent years has been increasing indulgence towards religious groups.

 

[colpepper1]

But you're back to complaining about Dawkins as an individual.

Indeed. I find his pronouncements, the manner of them, his conduct and his media presence, impossible to separate. I don't believe that's a shortcoming in my forensic capacities, I think it's a carefully cultivated image and one designed to blur his public image with what he says. But we're back to talking about Dawkins and I've used up my two post limit.

 

[Quake42]

Indeed. I find his pronouncements, the manner of them, his conduct and his media presence, impossible to separate. I don't believe that's a shortcoming in my forensic capacities, I think it's a carefully cultivated image and one designed to blur his public image with what he says.

That's fine, but your assertion appeared to be that there is a large political movement dedicated to atheism and growing in strength in this country. When challenged on this you go back to complaining about Dawkins. So I'll ask again: what is this political movement? Where is it? What is the evidence, other than a YouTube video of a Dawkins speech to some people protesting about a specific issue (the Pope's visit)?

 

[colpepper1]

To repeat, do the large number of self professed atheists align themselves with political aims such as those cited? If they do, there's an interesting debate to be had, if they don't they should say so and we can talk about what they would like to see.
At the moment nobody's saying nuffink and it reads like a script from The Prisoner. If someone breaks ranks and says what they'd like to see we can talk about it, till then evidence either way is circumstantial.

I'm happy to engage fully but the discussion is on the back foot until someone admits what they want to see, or can speak for an organisation to which they belong and categorically state it has no such political ambitions. It may of course be that atheism and atheists are undecided on whether its a vocal protest or a problem solving philosophy.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

To repeat, do the large number of self professed atheists align themselves with political aims such as those cited?

To repeat? To repeat what? :?

If they do, there's an interesting debate to be had, if they don't they should say so and we can talk about what they would like to see.

Are those not expressing pro-religious views on this thread now the subject of your claims of totalitarian atheism? If so it might have been easier just to say that in the first place instead of basing your claims on - and setting off in search of - organisations that you're obviously not familiar with.

At the moment nobody's saying nuffink and it reads like a script from The Prisoner. If someone breaks ranks and says what they'd like to see we can talk about it, till then evidence either way is circumstantial.

They are saying somefink - they're saying "to what or to whom are you referring or addressing"? Also - "break ranks"? Really? Do you think this thread is dominated by members of some secret atheist cult, unsure of our thoughts and awaiting directives from our great leader?

I'm happy to engage fully but the discussion is on the back foot until someone admits what they want to see, or can speak for an organisation to which they belong and categorically state it has no such political ambitions. It may of course be that atheism and atheists are undecided on whether its a vocal protest or a problem solving philosophy.

It seems pretty clear by now that the confusion is not confined to the atheistic position, if indeed it is to be found there at all. It is what those 'professing' it choose it to be. There's no atheist pope to tell us what it is or is not.

 

[Twin_Star]

So no-one's heard of the 'four horsemen of New Atheism' around here? Dawkins, predictably. Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. They're all pretty vocal about their agenda. There are many more out there, but i have to ask myself 'was it ever thus?' After all, Russell wrote 'Why i am not a Christian' in 1927. Permit me a brief quotation from his excellent essay:

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms...

It started before good old Bertrand of course. Voltaire's Deism was a move away from the RC church's powerstructure we could go on and on, further and further back but it serves little purpose. from what i can see on this thread everyone's talking past each other.

Of course, the Good Book tells us 'there is nothing new under the sun' so the fact generations of energy and effort is spent arguing for or against a religious perspective is, pretty much, entirely pointless.

It would seem logical to me, living in a late modern Western country that rationality and reason be the foundation for a legal structure, rather than mediaeval barbarism and tribal factioning masquerading as 'divinely inspired law'. The rest of the whole godnogod debate gets a pretty big meh from me. On a personal note i have to say that any one of the 4H would be an infinitely preferable dinner companion to, let's say, his holiness Abu Hamza if only for operational reasons.

The current Uncaged Monkeys tour has distinctly fluffy touchy-feely proselytizing whiff about it, 'int the universe so mad and amazing without all this god stuff?', but thats purely my own perspective and whether he's suffering from James Corden-like over-exposure at the moment or not, i'd rather watch Prof Brian Cox than that unfunny fuck any day of the week...

 

[colpepper1]

To repeat, do the large number of self professed atheists align themselves with political aims such as those cited?

To repeat? To repeat what? :?

If they do, there's an interesting debate to be had, if they don't they should say so and we can talk about what they would like to see.

Are those not expressing pro-religious views on this thread now the subject of your claims of totalitarian atheism? If so it might have been easier just to say that in the first place instead of basing your claims on - and setting off in search of - organisations that you're obviously not familiar with.

At the moment nobody's saying nuffink and it reads like a script from The Prisoner. If someone breaks ranks and says what they'd like to see we can talk about it, till then evidence either way is circumstantial.

They are saying somefink - they're saying "to what or to whom are you referring or addressing"? Also - "break ranks"? Really? Do you think this thread is dominated by members of some secret atheist cult, unsure of our thoughts and awaiting directives from our great leader?

I'm happy to engage fully but the discussion is on the back foot until someone admits what they want to see, or can speak for an organisation to which they belong and categorically state it has no such political ambitions. It may of course be that atheism and atheists are undecided on whether its a vocal protest or a problem solving philosophy.

It seems pretty clear by now that the confusion is not confined to the atheistic position, if indeed it is to be found there at all. It is what those 'professing' it choose it to be. There's no atheist pope to tell us what it is or is not.

You don't fancy saying what the master plan is then? Even your master plan?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

You don't fancy saying what the master plan is then? Even your master plan?

I'm afraid that question simply demonstrates the limited horizons of religious thought. All this talk of masterplans, it's just so Genesis and Revelation. Does every assessment of a fantastical claim now have to come complete with a manifesto?

 

[colpepper1]

You don't fancy saying what the master plan is then? Even your master plan?

I'm afraid that question simply demonstrates the limited horizons of religious thought. All this talk of masterplans, it's just so Genesis and Revelation. Does every assessment of a fantastical claim now have to come complete with a manifesto?

Of course! Otherwise it's just a Sam Harris argument.