Atheism

[colpepper1]

I disagree, D****s attacks on religious extremists are the thin end of a wedge. He's a puritan, there are no half measures for RD.
He'd use scorn to eliminate the 'memes' of belief and ridicule as a tool of intellectual cleansing. So long as there was no physical suffering involved to trouble the synapse responses where his conscience should be, there are no depths to which he would not sink in his bid to clean up the intellectual culture and bring in a scientific rationalist utopia.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I disagree, D****s attacks on religious extremists are the thin end of a wedge. He's a puritan, there are no half measures for RD.
He'd use scorn to eliminate the 'memes' of belief and ridicule as a tool of intellectual cleansing. So long as there was no physical suffering involved to trouble the synapse responses where his conscience should be, there are no depths to which he would not sink in his bid to clean up the intellectual culture and bring in a scientific rationalist utopia.

Dress it up however you like, he's still simply putting forward arguments that stand and fall on their own merits and exercising his free speech, and to confuse this with trying to enforce anything on any one is an extremely dangerous path, which really does smack of totalitarianism and thought control. Your ire at his having a different opinion to you makes no sense to me at all; the history of open debate in this country is strong - just counter his arguments if you find them flawed.

 

[colpepper1]

I completely support his right to argue a case, and mine to question his motivations. D****s presents himself as an abstraction, pure mind, Babbage's indifference engine tuning out neutral solutions to complex problems.
I think he's the same seething mass of ambition, jealousy and ego as the rest of us and religion and belief are the Aunt Sally he's chosen to exercise those ambitions. Of course there are deeply unsavoury aspects of some religions and self-evidently that is not the whole story. For RD, militant Islam and Quakerism are the same thing separated only by good PR. Both pernicious errors on the way to enlightenment and he'd use whatever 'educational' means necessary to eliminate both without a moment's pause.

Anyway, this thread is not about Dawkins and I don't want to provoke the moderators by indulging in him.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Dawkins is on topic on an atheism thread, especially when we are discussing pollitically active atheists.

I still can't see what angers you. Both Dawkins and I think that religion, even moderate, is a poor way to approach knowledge and wisdom, and are simply voicing our opinions over this, with arguments to back up the case. Why do you see such a problem in this opinion, when it is being voiced in open debate, and you can simply counter the arguments if you disagree? Individuals can choose for themselves which arguments are correct, and if they disagree with Dawkins, so be it - the argument is lost.

My motivation in voicing my dissent against all religion is that i feel that religious faith is a very poor way to approach the gathering of knowledge and wisdom, and if you accept it as a valid approach, there is no way to draw a line, as any behaviour can be justified as being based on faith. I genuinely think that humanity would be better off without this approach, so I'll argue publicly against it, whilst defending people's rights to believe whatever they want. If folks disagree with me, that is their prerogative, but I don't expect them to show animosity towards me for disagreeing with them. This is not a violent attack on religion - it is just open debate.

 

[colpepper1]

We are not robots. What of poor, dull witted, non-scientists like myself who see no means of deciding whether a God does or does not exist? Where do we fit in D****s master plan?

BTW there's ample evidence that bringing up RD in the atheism thread seriously pisses off the mods.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

We are not robots. What of poor, dull witted, non-scientists like myself who see no means of deciding whether a God does or does not exist? Where do we fit in D****s master plan?

BTW there's ample evidence that bringing up RD in the atheism thread seriously pisses off the mods.

OK, I'll leave him out for now, but I suspect his motivations (apart from his selling books!) are somewhat similar to mine. Presuming that by "master plan" you mean the loss of religion, you fit in it wherever you want - you either believe in gods or you don't - atheists aren't obliged to support what we see as weak arguments for belief in deities or adopting religion as an approach to wisdom, and if we think those arguments are bad, we'll voice our dissent.

Again though, I'd stress that I too see no means of deciding whether a "God" does or does not exist, when "God" is used under its loosest definition - until I see reasons to believe such a thing does exist though, it's just one of any number of possible causes of creation, with no more reason to be presumed likely than the rest.

Are you going to say that you are agnostic of the god concepts put forward by the likes of Christianity though, with their sons of gods coming to earth, performing miracles and dying for humanity's "sins", which are themselves based on the mythical Adam and Eve story?

 

[colpepper1]

Are you going to say that you are agnostic of the god concepts put forward by the likes of Christianity though, with their sons of gods coming to earth, performing miracles and dying for humanity's "sins", which are themselves based on the mythical Adam and Eve story?

If there is a God, I have no idea how he would manifest himself, nor what mechanisms he/she/it would occlude himself in. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and presently people in this country are entitled to believe whatever they choose within the law. Every alternative proposal is a weakening of that position.

If a political atheist were to limit his ambition to a disestablished church, that would be a reasonable claim, though it would still be an intention to replace representatives of believers with something else, presumably disbelievers, undermining the section of society who believe in a Christian God.
The fact is politics is rife with all kinds of belief and disbelief. You could argue the legal boundary that stopped Tony Blair becoming a catholic while prime minister was a restriction of his rights, Ed Miliband is a vocal atheist and it has not inhibited his rise to the top of the Labour party. The practical restrictions on belief and disbelief in Britain are much overplayed, there are numerous social structures and ties that promote or inhibit preferment in science, the arts, politics of which belief is just one strand.

My belief is militant atheists want to bring in wide-ranging social changes which restrict the rights of sections of the community on the back demanding their own rights. It's completely unnecessary, their right to disbelieve is not being questioned, their demand to impose that right where belief already exists is.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Are you going to say that you are agnostic of the god concepts put forward by the likes of Christianity though, with their sons of gods coming to earth, performing miracles and dying for humanity's "sins", which are themselves based on the mythical Adam and Eve story?

If there is a God, I have no idea how he would manifest himself, nor what mechanisms he/she/it would occlude himself in. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and presently people in this country are entitled to believe whatever they choose within the law. Every alternative proposal is a weakening of that position.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - nobody is claiming that. Absence of evidence is absence of reason to believe in a concept though - that is weak atheism. I could apply your same logic to an infinite multiverse with no guiding intelligence and universes being spawned within universes, powered by the collapse of stars into black holes.

The people in this country are entitled to believe what they choose, but it is critical and important that thier right to believe does not trump my right to dissent.

Anything else would be a stifling of the free exchange of ideas, and I would count such behaviour as totalitarian.

If a political atheist were to limit his ambition to a disestablished church, that would be a reasonable claim, though it would still be an intention to replace representatives of believers with something else, presumably disbelievers, undermining the section of society who believe in a Christian God.
The fact is politics is rife with all kinds of belief and disbelief. You could argue the legal boundary that stopped Tony Blair becoming a catholic while prime minister was a restriction of his rights, Ed Miliband is a vocal atheist and it has not inhibited his rise to the top of the Labour party. The practical restrictions on belief and disbelief in Britain are much overplayed, there are numerous social structures and ties that promote or inhibit preferment in science, the arts, politics of which belief is just one strand.

My belief is militant atheists want to bring in wide-ranging social changes which restrict the rights of sections of the community on the back demanding their own rights. It's completely unnecessary, their right to disbelieve is not being questioned, their demand to impose that right where belief already exists is.

I've no desire to replace the bishops in the Lords with anything - I want the secular Lords abolished as well, as they are undemocratic.

Your belief is simply unfounded - what rights are political (there's that naughty "militant" word again) atheists looking to restrict? I know of no atheists who expect to actually ever see religion vanish. Just because it's a desired end-state doesn't mean I for one see it as actually attainable - My desired end-state is not the enforced blocking of religion; it is for people to realise that religion is not a good thing for themselves, when presented with what I think are good arguments against religion - if they are not convinced by my arguments, fair enough, they will carry on with their beliefs and we will live happily together.

 

[Jerry_B]

Apart from Dawkins, who are these 'militant aetheists' and what, if any, moves are they currently making to bring in various changes? I must admit I can't see any organised front trying to bring such things into reality. Dawkins is just more apparent as me makes quite a bit of noise and doesn't shirk from the public eye, but AFAIK there aren't alot of people like him in some sort of organised group...

 

[colpepper1]

My desired end-state is not the enforced blocking of religion; it is for people to realise that religion is not a good thing for themselves, when presented with what I think are good arguments against religion - if they are not convinced by my arguments, fair enough, they will carry on with their beliefs and we will live happily together.

The arguments for an against religion are not new ones. People who believe in, for want of a better term, a supernatural universe won't be convinced by a wholly material view of that universe.

Rationalist atheists appear to think there is sufficient evidence that a God is unlikely enough to the point of non-existence, believers accommodate a deity that is outside materiality. The two views are orthogonal, they only become contradictory when ideology is embedded in those views. Rational people can and do believe in a creator God and irrational people can be atheists, I see no contradiction in those positions unless they are founded on ideological assumptions which include value judgements.

 

[colpepper1]

I must admit I can't see any organised front trying to bring such things into reality.

You're probably not looking hard enough, or you've convinced yourself they're merely well intentioned people trying free minds of their shackles.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

My desired end-state is not the enforced blocking of religion; it is for people to realise that religion is not a good thing for themselves, when presented with what I think are good arguments against religion - if they are not convinced by my arguments, fair enough, they will carry on with their beliefs and we will live happily together.

The arguments for an against religion are not new ones. People who believe in, for want of a better term, a supernatural universe won't be convinced by a wholly material view of that universe.

Rationalist atheists appear to think there is sufficient evidence that a God is unlikely enough to the point of non-existence, believers accommodate a deity that is outside materiality. The two views are orthogonal, they only become contradictory when ideology is embedded in those views. Rational people can and do believe in a creator God and irrational people can be atheists, I see no contradiction in those positions unless they are founded on ideological assumptions which include value judgements.

Again, I disagree with you - I think most people are simply religious because they have been indoctrinated by religions. I think religion is profoundly irrational and the language you use above is just typical pro-religious apologetic rhetoric; language which doesn't actually stand up to any kind of rational scrutiny, when analysed.

This debate isn't really about our different opinions though. My concern is your seeming desire to stifle atheists expressing their opinions via their right to free speech. In my ideal world, people with all the differing opinions on all sides of the debate will exchange their ideas openly and peacefully and a natural balance will be reached, with some convinced by the arguments of others, and some not.

 

[colpepper1]

My concern is your seeming desire to stifle atheists expressing their opinions via their right to free speech.

There is no evidence whatsoever of that. That's a fictional assumption based on polemic and an ad hom in the disguise. You keep repeating these falsehoods and it makes arguing a position almost impossible, which is no doubt its purpose.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

But you said above "people in this country are entitled to believe whatever they choose within the law. Every alternative proposal is a weakening of that position."

I apologise if I misread this, but I took that to mean people proposing alternatives to the religious position were somehow violating the rights of the religious to believe. That would be a direct stance against the freedom of speech of those opponents.

If I'm wrong, can you please clarify what this meant?

 

[colpepper1]

But you said above "people in this country are entitled to believe whatever they choose within the law. Every alternative proposal is a weakening of that position."

I apologise if I misread this, but I took that to mean people proposing alternatives to the religious position were somehow violating the rights of the religious to believe. That would be a direct stance against the freedom of speech of those opponents.

If I'm wrong, can you please clarify what this meant?

You can propose all the alternatives you choose, I'm arguing against your right to impose them on those who choose otherwise and interfering with any structures which alter the balance of choice.

As things stand in this country, there is no impediment to high office in being a believer or not, both positions bring a considerable constituency with them. To pretend otherwise is to claim spurious victimhood and loses the moral high ground and weakens your debating position.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

But you said above "people in this country are entitled to believe whatever they choose within the law. Every alternative proposal is a weakening of that position."

I apologise if I misread this, but I took that to mean people proposing alternatives to the religious position were somehow violating the rights of the religious to believe. That would be a direct stance against the freedom of speech of those opponents.

If I'm wrong, can you please clarify what this meant?

You can propose all the alternatives you choose, I'm arguing against your right to impose them on those who choose otherwise and interfering with any structures which alter the balance of choice.

As things stand in this country, there is no impediment to high office in being a believer or not, both positions bring a considerable constituency with them. To pretend otherwise is to claim spurious victimhood and loses the moral high ground and weakens you debating position.

But where is this attempt to "impose" anything? How is arguing against religion imposing anything at all? I still see this as confusing our expresssion of our opinions with being a form of imposition.

With regards to holding high office, I can guarantee that at present, the bishops' seats in the House of Lords are certainly not open to those of any belief, or lack of belief.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

The fact is politics is rife with all kinds of belief and disbelief. You could argue the legal boundary that stopped Tony Blair becoming a catholic while prime minister was a restriction of his rights, Ed Miliband is a vocal atheist and it has not inhibited his rise to the top of the Labour party.

Minor point but there were no legal boundaries stopping Tony Blair becoming a catholic whilst prime minister (unless you mean being the prime minister of the UK restricted entry to the church of Rome). There seems to be something of a mythology regarding this detail, often amongst those of the faith, which doesn't very well explain why many catholic and non-protestant MPs have run for such office and/or the leadership of a major party (sometimes successfully).

 

[Jerry_B]

You're probably not looking hard enough, or you've convinced yourself they're merely well intentioned people trying free minds of their shackles.

I'd prefer it if your tone was a little more civil, as it was a simple question I was asking - and I'm not attacking you.

That aside, I'd still like to know who you think makes up the vanguard of this alleged hardcore aetheist front. I'll take it as read that you'd have Dawkins on that list, but thus far it's not clear who else you think is involved.

 

[colpepper1]

FT, from your previous words I assumed you wanted to extend your personal disbelief into political belief.

TBM, my position on a catholic or jewish PM was taken from these complexities: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_have_ ... at_Britain

JB, I apologise for any lack of civility. When debating with the well intentioned and the less so, all of whom share a roughly similar position, it's inevitable one response is coloured by another. My rough edges are the result of my social conditioning and deeply embedded memes which bar me from elegant conversation.
There are lots of political atheists, you'll have to draw up your own list I'm afraid and decide what their ideological ambitions are and where they might end.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I have to agree with Colpepper that there has certainly been a rise in the activity of atheists over recent years, and they have rallied to some degree around the likes of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins.

Where I disagree though is the perception that this is a bad thing, or that there is any violent intent in their motivation, or even that it's any kind of coherent force. More likely, it's just a general gathering of minds around a specific issue, facilitated by improved communications brought around by enhancements in social networking.

There are many other topics in which I tend to gravitate towards individuals who share my interests; atheism is just one of them.

In terms of political belief, my vote is worth the same as a believer's - we live in a democracy.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

TBM, my position on a catholic PM was taken from these complexities: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_have_ ... at_Britain

Someone should have shown that page to the Tories when they elected Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard (not to mention Michael Portillo, Malcolm Rifkind, Liam Fox, Andy Burnham and David Miliband when running for the leadership of their respective parties).

Let's not forget, however, that though Charles Kennedy would have been unlikely to have found himself in the highest office that he certainly would never have gone anywhere that did not have a bar.

 

[colpepper1]

Speaking personally, my mistrust of politicians runs much deeper than any perceived lack of confidence in atheists. When the two coincide I get a full scale red alert.

Atheists have never done me any harm. The politicians I've met OTOH have all been absolute scoundrels. Atheism has no corollary in the grubby business of politics.

 

[stu neville]

BTW there's ample evidence that bringing up RD in the atheism thread seriously pisses off the mods.

No. There's evidence that we have previously pointed out that Dawkins -related discussion can easily become about Dawkins himself: discussing Dawkins in the context of Atheism on this thread is fine though.

Once the balance switches to Atheism in the context of Dawkins then I hope most people would notice, and maybe some hiving off would be justified.

What it doesn't do is piss us off, so please don't caution others with our (mistakenly) perceived potential umbrage.

 

[colpepper1]

What it doesn't do is piss us off, so please don't caution others with our (mistakenly) perceived potential umbrage.

In the past threads here have been tagged onto the Dawkins thread, so they make even less sense than they do already. My personal limit is a response to one or two posts with Dawkins as leitmotif, what other people do is up to them but they shouldn't take my lack of response as lack of opinion, simply a desire to avoid sinking time into a debate that will be abstracted later.

 

[Jerry_B]

There are lots of political atheists, you'll have to draw up your own list I'm afraid and decide what their ideological ambitions are and where they might end.

But are they forming (or have they formed) into a concerted effort to usher in radical aetheism? IMHO there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. Whilst there may be those sorts of people out there, it doesn't seem as if they're organised in any singular way - certainly not as much as theist groups.

 

[Quake42]

I have to agree with Colpepper that there has certainly been a rise in the activity of atheists over recent years, and they have rallied to some degree around the likes of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins.

I'm afraid I can't agree at all. What we have seen is quite the opposite - kowtowing by government to religious groups of all stripes, regardless of the increasingly secular nature of UK society.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I have to agree with Colpepper that there has certainly been a rise in the activity of atheists over recent years, and they have rallied to some degree around the likes of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins.

I'm afraid I can't agree at all. What we have seen is quite the opposite - kowtowing by government to religious groups of all stripes, regardless of the increasingly secular nature of UK society.

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.

 

[colpepper1]

There are lots of political atheists, you'll have to draw up your own list I'm afraid and decide what their ideological ambitions are and where they might end.

But are they forming (or have they formed) into a concerted effort to usher in radical aetheism? IMHO there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. Whilst there may be those sorts of people out there, it doesn't seem as if they're organised in any singular way - certainly not as much as theist groups.

Who can say? There's a rise in the profile of people who think the onus of proof for issues of faith should be decided in a similar way to those of science. If sufficient clauses are in place to ensure the rights of worship and belief, places of worship and the education of people within those belief systems, I fail to see any difference from the current status quo, so I'd ask what it is exactly that politically motivated atheists seek? By political atheists I don't of course mean politicians who happen to be atheists, e.g, Ed Miliband.

Logic suggests politicised atheists want to usher in a variety of measures that differ from current ones. Some might be reasonable ones such as evolutionary theory taught on all school syllabuses, at the other end of the spectrum all alternative beliefs might be proscribed, places of worship shut down, science become the only valid proof of anything, a long term programme of re-eduction instituted and imprisonment of dissenters.

That would be dangerous for all kinds of reasons, especially the way it would radicalise believers and necessarily force their activities underground and into the political sphere.

 

[Jerry_B]

But that still doesn't answer the question as to who they are and whether they've formed into any sort of organisation or front to push forward such ideas.

Sorry, but at the moment it sounds as if what you say is going on is more like what you opine is the case, rather than it being a statement of fact. Who can say? Well, I'm asking you to tell me. Otherwise it just seems that such nefarious forces aren't actually out there at all.

 

[colpepper1]

But that still doesn't answer the question as to who they are and whether they've formed into any sort of organisation or front to push forward such ideas.

Sorry, but at the moment it sounds as if what you say is going on is more like what you opine is the case, rather than it being a statement of fact. Who can say? Well, I'm asking you to tell me. Otherwise it just seems that such nefarious forces aren't actually out there at all.

You're misrepresenting what I've said. It's my belief that atheists are becoming more vocal and politicised. There is evidence for that in newspaper articles, rallies and so on. I'm not suggesting they belong to a single organisation with a particular agenda, many of them are academics and journalists and I doubt they could organise anything so complex.

Nonetheless it's possible to discern an undercurrent of anger on the internet and in the media against religious organisations that appears to have a political dimension to it. We could have a long discussion about exactly how that agenda manifests itself, whether my depiction of it as political is the correct term and so on. Broadly speaking the argument is whether such people are voicing their opinion that religion is crap, or it's crap and something should be done about it. Given the balance of secular and religious interests within the political sphere, I'm asking if there is such a momentum, what are the ambitions of such people?

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.