Atheism

[Quake42]

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

I repeat: what political aims have been cited and by whom? Please tell us exactly what you're talking about.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think you'll see us as more of a vocal group, there to argue publicly against the excesses of religion.

One example - I would love to see an end to faith schools and religious Sunday schools, as I agree with Dawkins that forced indoctrination of vulnerable children into religions is a form of child abuse; as a kid, I had Christian religion rammed down my throat as fact by shady institutions such as this.

I won't actually campaign for this to happen, because I realise it's an unrealistic goal, but I'll certainly argue the case against such institutions vocally - I can just hope that I can help raise general public awareness of how wrong religious indoctrination of children is.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The British Humanist Association would probably agree with you.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns

They're the group that ran the, 'God probably doesn't exist', campaign on buses.

 

[Quake42]

One example - I would love to see an end to faith schools and religious Sunday schools, as I agree with Dawkins that forced indoctrination of vulnerable children into religions is a form of child abuse; as a kid, I had Christian religion rammed down my throat as fact by shady institutions such as this.

I don't agree with state funding of faith schools and I think it is shocking that such institutions expanded under a Labour government. However if parents wish to send their kids to Sunday schools etc in their free time I don't see this as an issue for government/legislators. I think Dawkins goes too far on stuff like this.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

My understanding has been that one reason the State funds, or partly funds, religious schools, is that financial input and some sort of say in the running, makes it all the better to keep an eye on them.

How much control that actually gives them, is open to debate. Things could be worse, if such schools were forced underground, or on to funding, possibly from over seas.

 

[Quake42]

How much control that actually gives them, is open to debate. Things could be worse, if such schools were forced underground, or on to funding, possibly from over seas.

Private schools are, as I understand it, subject to Ofsted inspections (if they're not then they should be!) and the overseas funding issue could be easily addressed by a simple law against such payments.

 

[colpepper1]

I think you'll see us as more of a vocal group, there to argue publicly against the excesses of religion.

One example - I would love to see an end to faith schools and religious Sunday schools, as I agree with Dawkins that forced indoctrination of vulnerable children into religions is a form of child abuse; as a kid, I had Christian religion rammed down my throat as fact by shady institutions such as this.

I won't actually campaign for this to happen, because I realise it's an unrealistic goal, but I'll certainly argue the case against such institutions vocally - I can just hope that I can help raise general public awareness of how wrong religious indoctrination of children is.

Thank you FT, for being the first voice from atheism that says what it's for, not simply what it's against. I'll have a think about faith schools and get back to you.

On the broader point I've been pondering what it is that I find hard to grasp about new atheism and it is the absolute reliance on the persuasive power of logical argument to win minds. Looking at the world of politics very little decision making seems to be based on logic, and millions vote on party lines that are almost complete abstractions.

For an idea that claims to be simple disbelief, it rapidly gets into complex philosophy when the idea becomes discursive and reaches outside of that disbelief. The debate includes an almost obsessive deconstruction of language and a desire to dictate the terms of debate. Those aspects are for me the biggest turn off. It has no simple truth that people can get behind when it moves from opinion to philosophy, no spontaneity and the main spokespeople behind new atheism seem to be philosophers and academics rather than the grass roots voices, who are more instinctive believers or disbelievers.

I wonder if Atheism is mainly a middleclass enthusiasm?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

One example - I would love to see an end to faith schools and religious Sunday schools, as I agree with Dawkins that forced indoctrination of vulnerable children into religions is a form of child abuse; as a kid, I had Christian religion rammed down my throat as fact by shady institutions such as this.

I don't agree with state funding of faith schools and I think it is shocking that such institutions expanded under a Labour government. However if parents wish to send their kids to Sunday schools etc in their free time I don't see this as an issue for government/legislators. I think Dawkins goes too far on stuff like this.

I agree, no legislation, but, speaking for myself, I see nothing wrong with trying to highlight the fact that there are reasons to consider the indoctrination of your own children into a religion as child abuse. I can't press for the banning of this, because I believe that would be a step too far against the freedoms of others - I just want to put the argument out there; it's purely about raising public awareness of the issue, and again, people can choose to agree or disagree with the argument - it's not being forced on anyone.

 

[Jerry_B]

Ideally, I think Church and State should be kept seperate. I'd extend this also to schools.

That said, one wonders how far legislation would really support religious schools - it only seems to support mainstream religions, AFAIK. One also wonders whether the recent spate of new religious schools wasn't an exercise in politicking itself.

 

[Quake42]

On the broader point I've been pondering what it is that I find hard to grasp about new atheism and it is the absolute reliance on the persuasive power of logical argument to win minds. Looking at the world of politics very little decision making seems to be based on logic, and millions vote on party lines that are almost complete abstractions.

Even assuming this is true I'm not sure it's a negative point against atheism: what is so wrong about an argument based on logic rather than tribal loyalties?

You still haven't answered the question. What are the political aims of this atheistic movement and what evidence for their existence do you have?

 

[colpepper1]

I see nothing wrong with trying to highlight the fact that there are reasons to consider the indoctrination of your own children into a religion as child abuse.

Where would you draw the lines? Do your homework and tidy your room? Get a job, work hard and improve your station? All such received wisdoms based on shaky evidence and heavy ideological assumptions. I can't see how telling them religious stories is any worse than folk tales with children being baked in ovens by witches.

I never even discussed religion with mine until the eldest was a teenager and they seem to have a sensible take on religion. Surely comparative religion with respect is the way to discuss these things?

 

[Quake42]

One also wonders whether the recent spate of new religious schools wasn't an exercise in politicking itself.

I think it was pragmatic rather than political. The last government was desperate to deliver improvements in state education but found it difficult to do so. Church (usually CoE) schools were popular with many parents because they tended to have more motivated and affluent intakes and so better results and discipline*. As a result and in an attempt to deliver parental choice, church schools were encouraged to expand. Other religions then started to agitate for their schools and government felt unable to say no, which I believe was a huge mistake.

* Growing up in the North East, where Catholic schools were notoriously poor quality and bright students often transferred from there to the local comp to take their A levels, I find this odd, but there you have it.

 

[stu neville]

..Private schools are, as I understand it, subject to Ofsted inspections (if they're not then they should be!)

Some are - those that are not are subject to regular inspection by the Independent Schools Council, who are just as rigorous and in do so in consultation with the D of Ed.

Also, the D of Ed can order any school inspected at short notice.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I think you'll see us as more of a vocal group, there to argue publicly against the excesses of religion.

One example - I would love to see an end to faith schools and religious Sunday schools, as I agree with Dawkins that forced indoctrination of vulnerable children into religions is a form of child abuse; as a kid, I had Christian religion rammed down my throat as fact by shady institutions such as this.

I won't actually campaign for this to happen, because I realise it's an unrealistic goal, but I'll certainly argue the case against such institutions vocally - I can just hope that I can help raise general public awareness of how wrong religious indoctrination of children is.

Thank you FT, for being the first voice from atheism that says what it's for, not simply what it's against. I'll have a think about faith schools and get back to you.

Be careful though Colpepper - I'm not speaking on behalf of atheists - I'm speaking on behalf of me, who happens to be atheist - other atheists may and will probably disagree with me.

On the broader point I've been pondering what it is that I find hard to grasp about new atheism and it is the absolute reliance on the persuasive power of logical argument to win minds. Looking at the world of politics very little decision making seems to be based on logic, and millions vote on party lines that are almost complete abstractions.

For an idea that claims to be simple disbelief, it rapidly gets into complex philosophy when the idea becomes discursive and reaches outside of that disbelief. The debate includes an almost obsessive deconstruction of language and a desire to dictate the terms of debate. Those aspects are for me the biggest turn off. It has no simple truth that people can get behind when it moves from opinion to philosophy, no spontaneity and the main spokespeople behind new atheism seem to be philosophers and academics rather than the grass roots voices, who are more instinctive believers or disbelievers.

I wonder if Atheism is mainly a middleclass enthusiasm?

As I've said already, I see most philosophy as complete BS; empty verbiage trying to hide behind a mask of faux intellectualism, much in the same vein as any pseudo science. So, of course I want to deconstruct the language and take an iconoclastic, back to basics approach. If you try and foist subjective philosophical ideas, I'm not going to debate them - they are simply not given, and are of no interest to me.

If it turns you off, so be it - you're probably not the target demographic for my arguments, but if I can help 10 people who are on the fence and unhappy in a religion imposed on them by their parents shake off the shackles they never chose to wear, as I managed to do myself, then that's a job well done, as far as I'm concerned.

All I want to do is raise public awareness through debate and they can take or leave my arguments. I have absolutely no desire to impose my will on others, and I'll find it disingenuous if anyone tries to confuse the two.

 

[Quake42]

I can't see how telling them religious stories is any worse than folk tales with children being baked in ovens by witches.

Because fairy tales aren't being passed off as being real, whereas religious threats of eternal torment as a result of some misdemeanor are.

 

[colpepper1]

You still haven't answered the question. What are the political aims of this atheistic movement and what evidence for their existence do you have?

I have to my complete satisfaction. You're simply trolling by refusing to acknowledge it

 

[Quake42]

I have to my complete satisfaction. You're simply trolling by refusing to acknowledge it

I'm not trolling at all. If you have answered the question I have missed the post and apologise. Perhaps you could post it again?

 

[colpepper1]

I have to my complete satisfaction. You're simply trolling by refusing to acknowledge it

I'm not trolling at all. If you have answered the question I have missed the post and apologise. Perhaps you could post it again?

Absolutely not. You're trolling.

 

[colpepper1]

As I've said already, I see most philosophy as complete BS

But most new atheism is profoundly philosophical and cites Wittgenstein, Russell et al to back its case. It's more Heidegger than dig it. I went through a Christian upbringing, found church unspeakably dull, stopped going at adolescence, became agnostic only because I lacked the dedication to be atheist and now have absolutely no idea whether a God does or doesn't exist and am open to debate, faith, grace and any other concept that contributes to understanding.

I'd have thought my journey was fairly typical for a white Briton.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

As I've said already, I see most philosophy as complete BS

But most new atheism is profoundly philosophical and cites Wittgenstein, Russell et al to back its case. It's more Heidegger than dig it. I went through a Christian upbringing, found church unspeakably dull, stopped going at adolescence, became agnostic only because I lacked the dedication to be atheist and now have absolutely no idea whether a God does or doesn't exist and am open to debate, faith, grace and any other concept that contributes to understanding.

I'd have thought my journey was fairly typical for a white Briton.

I disagree - most atheists I know are broadly anti-philosophy. Logical arguments support themselves and need no names behind them for any added authority. My ideas are in many cases my own, and if I hear ideas from others that make sense, I'll pick them up. Just because some philosophers have said some sensible things doesn't validate philosphy as a subject.

My problem with your description above is it misses out the subtlety of what a "Christian upbringing" means. You may have been lucky, and that may have involved a liberal arm of the church, but large numbers of people are not in that boat. I was taught the literal truth of the Jesus story as a kid, including the going to hell if you don't believe it part. I was terrified and bullied into believing the nonsense. That is just plain wrong, when dealing with impressionable kids, at an age where they trust in everything they hear from adults.

 

[stu neville]

I have to my complete satisfaction. You're simply trolling by refusing to acknowledge it

...and..

I have to my complete satisfaction. You're simply trolling by refusing to acknowledge it

I'm not trolling at all. If you have answered the question I have missed the post and apologise. Perhaps you could post it again?

Absolutely not. You're trolling.

Ad hominae times 2.

Colpepper1 is suspended for one week, and receives an amber (final) warning. No-one can say they weren't warned.

 

[Quake42]

My problem with your description above is it misses out the subtlety of what a "Christian upbringing" means. You may have been lucky, and that may have involved a liberal arm of the church, but large numbers of people are not in that boat. I was taught the literal truth of the Jesus story as a kid, including the going to hell if you don't believe it part.

I think this is the key point. Nativity plays, Easter parades, Harvest festivals and the like are harmless and indeed important cultural artifacts worth preserving (IMO). Indoctrinating children with tales of eternal torment is quite a different animal. I wouldn't like to see the former suppressed because of a fear of the latter.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

My problem with your description above is it misses out the subtlety of what a "Christian upbringing" means. You may have been lucky, and that may have involved a liberal arm of the church, but large numbers of people are not in that boat. I was taught the literal truth of the Jesus story as a kid, including the going to hell if you don't believe it part.

I think this is the key point. Nativity plays, Easter parades, Harvest festivals and the like are harmless and indeed important cultural artifacts worth preserving (IMO). Indoctrinating children with tales of eternal torment is quite a different animal. I wouldn't like to see the former suppressed because of a fear of the latter.

I'm quite happy to label myself as a cultural Christian; I'll be playing in a brass band at a religious service on Good Friday this week - I love the music, the art, the architecture, the festivals, the community spirit, the good works, even most of the Christian teachings when they are handled responsibly as parables. It's only where it slips over into ideas such as belief and faith and starts being labelled as "Truth" with a capital T that I can't and wouldn't want to follow.

 

[ramonmercado]

My problem with your description above is it misses out the subtlety of what a "Christian upbringing" means. You may have been lucky, and that may have involved a liberal arm of the church, but large numbers of people are not in that boat. I was taught the literal truth of the Jesus story as a kid, including the going to hell if you don't believe it part.

I think this is the key point. Nativity plays, Easter parades, Harvest festivals and the like are harmless and indeed important cultural artifacts worth preserving (IMO). Indoctrinating children with tales of eternal torment is quite a different animal. I wouldn't like to see the former suppressed because of a fear of the latter.

I'm quite happy to label myself as a cultural Christian; I'll be playing in a brass band at a religious service on Good Friday this week - I love the music, the art, the architecture, the festivals, the community spirit, the good works, even most of the Christian teachings when they are handled responsibly as parables. It's only where it slips over into ideas such as belief and faith and starts being labelled as "Truth" with a capital T that I can't and wouldn't want to follow.

Same here just as long as I'm able to send them up with a crucifixion party. Just the same as mocking the easter bunny or the tooth fairy.

 

[linesmachine]

Just wanted to comment on a couple of issues here:

Seperation of Church and State: I understand why this seems unjust to many, epsecially Atheists. But the reasons for it are obviously historical. Futhermore, the fact it expanded under the previous labour government is hardly surprising since Blair was a Catholic. I agree that there should be a divide between any faith and any government but we certainly won't see it in our life times in the UK.

Seperation of Dawkins and Atheism: My main circle of friends are atheists, I too am a non believer but I would not declare myself an out and out atheist. Most of the arguments I hear show annoyance at how Dawkins has become a figurehead for Atheism and the subsequent "dumbing down" of the atheist argument to what Colpepper (quite rightly I think) refers to as a a sort of absurbly oversimplified logic. BUT to think that atheists consider Dawkins to be a figurehead is (from my experience) totally incorrect. And to think that there is an organised middle class atheist movement of some sort is awesome....but paranoid.

 

[Quake42]

I understand why this seems unjust to many, epsecially Atheists. But the reasons for it are obviously historical.

The historical aspects I can't get too excited about: the fact that we have an established Church has zero effect on people's day to day lives and the CoE in its current guise is, ultimately, a pretty benign institution.

However the expansion of faith schools and the criminalisation of those criticising individual religions is a new phenomenon and is deeply damaging for the UK and its people.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Most of the arguments I hear show annoyance at how Dawkins has become a figurehead for Atheism and the subsequent "dumbing down" of the atheist argument to what Colpepper (quite rightly I think) refers to as a a sort of absurbly oversimplified logic.

I can't see any argument for it being oversimplified; it's simple because the situation is simple, as I can see it.

"God(s)" as a concept are simply irrelevant to the human condition, unless there is any genuinely good reason to start thinking such things exist. "Faith" does not even begin to be a good reason to think such things, and is pure anti-intellectual folly, which can justify absolutely any belief, no matter how ridiculous. The "complexity" of religious and most philosophical scholarly texts is mostly just flowery word-salad, that doesn't withstand any level of rational dissection.

 

[Analis]

So Analis, how do you account for where we have evidence of those who supposedly have everything to lose being exposed as hoaxers, How do you explain their motivation to perpetrate such hoaxes?

E.g. respectable British surgeon Robert Wilson, with everything to lose if exposed, completely lying about the origin of the famous Loch Ness monster photo, where he was even selected to front the hoax because he would be a supposedly "credible" front man.

It is off-topic, but I would say that Robert Wilson just hoped not to be caught - and he wasn't for decades. And at the time, the prospect of finding a surviving plesiosaur was not deemed as ludicrous as it is today. Many expected to find prehistoric monsters in various parts of the world.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

So Analis, how do you account for where we have evidence of those who supposedly have everything to lose being exposed as hoaxers, How do you explain their motivation to perpetrate such hoaxes?

E.g. respectable British surgeon Robert Wilson, with everything to lose if exposed, completely lying about the origin of the famous Loch Ness monster photo, where he was even selected to front the hoax because he would be a supposedly "credible" front man.

It is off-topic, but I would say that Robert Wilson just hoped not to be caught - and he wasn't for decades. And at the time, the prospect of finding a surviving plesiosaur was not deemed as ludicrous as it is today. Many expected to find prehistoric monsters in various parts of the world.

Not sure if we can move this topic to another thread, but that slightly misses my point - he hoped not to get caught, yes - but he was still somehow motivated in the first place to perpetrate a hoax that would potentially bring him to ridicule if exposed; why? I suspect it is because many different kinds of people are motivated to do such things by other forces and the idea of the "reliable witness" is questionable.

 

[linesmachine]

I understand why this seems unjust to many, epsecially Atheists. But the reasons for it are obviously historical.

The historical aspects I can't get too excited about: the fact that we have an established Church has zero effect on people's day to day lives and the CoE in its current guise is, ultimately, a pretty benign institution.

However the expansion of faith schools and the criminalisation of those criticising individual religions is a new phenomenon and is deeply damaging for the UK and its people.

Firstly, the fact that you, I and everyone here are discussing tax payers money being spent on faith schools surely indicates the established church has SOME sort of effect on our day to day lives.

Secondly, as for it being a pretty benign institution, I think you are calling it benign in relation to what it once was. If you look at the current situation the faiths have unbalanced political influence and spend billions of pounds. Even in this country alone. I don't like it either, but we have to face up to facts. I appreciate many of us may not see this in practice, or not want to believe it but if you compared the reach and power of the current CofE to a similar sized organisation (which I struggle to give examples of) we would have to recognise that it's vast.