Mountains In U.k. - Scone & St...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
'Atheist Alliance.'
72 Answers
The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have been getting a rather bad press of late, at best confused, and at worst corrupt. Meanwhile atheism pursues its bloodless purity. The most determined atheist in Britain, the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, has spoken of his desire to "destroy Christianity". Shortly before Christopher Hitchens died, Dawkins presented him with "an award in my name, at the Atheist Alliance Convention". Surely even non-believers might experience a shudder at the news of an Atheist Alliance. Allied to what, a belief in non-belief?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It makes perfect sense to me (as, indeed, does the destruction of Christianity):
http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai
http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai
@ Khandro - Do you ever bother to read the source of your cherry-picked quotations?
The quote, taken out of context, comes from a discussion/ interview between Dawkins and Hitchens. Dawkins asked for Hitchens thoughts about what might happen were they to win the intellectual argument and - and this bit is important, khandro, so pay attention - figuratively speaking, destroy christianity. His expressed concern was that Islam might fill the void. All that says about Dawkins is that he must be an optimist!
"But one of these interjections is most revealing. About half-way through, the Prof gets this in edgeways: 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?'"
Why might non-believers shudder at the thought of an atheist alliance? I for one am pretty glad that there is a coalition of rationalists, pointing out the nonsense that comes forth from the more fundamentalist faithheads. They are important in defending secular society from some of the more rampant religiously inspired hate campaigns, for a start.....
The quote, taken out of context, comes from a discussion/ interview between Dawkins and Hitchens. Dawkins asked for Hitchens thoughts about what might happen were they to win the intellectual argument and - and this bit is important, khandro, so pay attention - figuratively speaking, destroy christianity. His expressed concern was that Islam might fill the void. All that says about Dawkins is that he must be an optimist!
"But one of these interjections is most revealing. About half-way through, the Prof gets this in edgeways: 'Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?'"
Why might non-believers shudder at the thought of an atheist alliance? I for one am pretty glad that there is a coalition of rationalists, pointing out the nonsense that comes forth from the more fundamentalist faithheads. They are important in defending secular society from some of the more rampant religiously inspired hate campaigns, for a start.....
When was the last time we saw a news story about an atheist hate-monger again?
They are in the news all the time, just like the Westboro Baptist Church, or Al-Queda,or Operation Rescue in the US - you know, that religiously inspired anti-abortion group, one of whose members went out and shot a doctor.
There are some atheists that may be militant in rebutting some of the loonier and more intrusive aspects of religion in our secular society, but I have seen little evidence of hate-mongering, unless you can offer a documented example?
They are in the news all the time, just like the Westboro Baptist Church, or Al-Queda,or Operation Rescue in the US - you know, that religiously inspired anti-abortion group, one of whose members went out and shot a doctor.
There are some atheists that may be militant in rebutting some of the loonier and more intrusive aspects of religion in our secular society, but I have seen little evidence of hate-mongering, unless you can offer a documented example?
-- answer removed --
I dont protest at all Arti - I just asked you to provide an example of atheist hate- mongering, along the lines that we have seen from religiously inspired fundamentalists. It seems to me your assertion is ill-judged.
It would appear you cannot. Speaking only for myself, I do not hate those with religion, but I am most definitely not a fan of the ideology, and I will defend my right to forcefully question faith and its principles wherever it intrudes into secular life.
It would appear you cannot. Speaking only for myself, I do not hate those with religion, but I am most definitely not a fan of the ideology, and I will defend my right to forcefully question faith and its principles wherever it intrudes into secular life.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Buenchico: // I openly express my total disdain of (and utter contempt for) all Christians// My dictionary defines contempt as a "condition of despising".
Christianity is not my bag, but I live in a small village about 50 metres from a small Onion-domed (Catholic) church. It is Sunday morning and it is filled with hard working people who are taking communion, asserting nothing, and demanding nothing of either me or you. Do you hold them in contempt and despise them?
Christianity is not my bag, but I live in a small village about 50 metres from a small Onion-domed (Catholic) church. It is Sunday morning and it is filled with hard working people who are taking communion, asserting nothing, and demanding nothing of either me or you. Do you hold them in contempt and despise them?
Khandro, you are being a bit naive if you think that organised abrahamic religion demands nothing of 'me or you'. Our parliament is infested with unelected clerics, the head of the C of E is offically of higher rank than the elected prime minister. The only reason that abortions are legal, you can buy petrol on a sunday and a host of other things that we now take for granted is because secularists (atheists) have fought against the domination of the church. When you consider how easily nazism took hold in catholic Italy and catholic/protestant Germany perhaps a little more rational thinking would improve our lot and avoid blind obedience to religious dogma and politicians who take advantage of the resulting mental laziness.
Arti, if you didn't know before you know now: that you will not get away with making sweeping statements on this site without being required to substantiate them.
I have read the views of many fellow atheists here over the years and have never found anything 'hate-filled' in them. I know and own all of Dawkins's books and other atheist writings and have found no hatred anywhere.
Examples please... or perhaps a withdrawal?
I have read the views of many fellow atheists here over the years and have never found anything 'hate-filled' in them. I know and own all of Dawkins's books and other atheist writings and have found no hatred anywhere.
Examples please... or perhaps a withdrawal?
Arti: We have met your argument about atheist hated before along with "atheists are more extreme than the religious", "atheism is a religion" and many many others.
So if you want to have an intelligent discussion then you might want to have some substance in your posts if you expect to get anywhere.
Right now you look like just another religious apologist that has never contemplated the real argument.
If you want to learn about hate just look to the words of any of the Abrahamic holy books and recognise the unashamed and particular vitriolic hate encompassed by God.
God may well be about love to many but the undeniable subplot of all these religions is that God loves the compliant but reserves no limit to the punishment befalling those who do not bow down and worship Him. Moreover, "Him" turns out to be the ruling oligarchy of the church who make arbitrary laws to suit their own lust for power and self indulgence.
It is an unhealthy philosophy that has been used to repeatedly stunt the advancement of human morality by undermining rational discussion and blocking progress.
They do this by creating packs of zombies who will go out and inflict the "Will of God" doing anything from voting against a government policy through to brutal genocide.
So if you want to have an intelligent discussion then you might want to have some substance in your posts if you expect to get anywhere.
Right now you look like just another religious apologist that has never contemplated the real argument.
If you want to learn about hate just look to the words of any of the Abrahamic holy books and recognise the unashamed and particular vitriolic hate encompassed by God.
God may well be about love to many but the undeniable subplot of all these religions is that God loves the compliant but reserves no limit to the punishment befalling those who do not bow down and worship Him. Moreover, "Him" turns out to be the ruling oligarchy of the church who make arbitrary laws to suit their own lust for power and self indulgence.
It is an unhealthy philosophy that has been used to repeatedly stunt the advancement of human morality by undermining rational discussion and blocking progress.
They do this by creating packs of zombies who will go out and inflict the "Will of God" doing anything from voting against a government policy through to brutal genocide.
jomifl; //When you consider how easily nazism took hold in catholic Italy and catholic/protestant Germany//
In Germany, since Bismark, the church and the state have been completely separated. Hitler and Mussolini were both irreligious, (elsewhere Stalin and Franco too), so perhaps it's the atheist leaders we should beware of, (Winston Churchill was a Christian).
In Germany, since Bismark, the church and the state have been completely separated. Hitler and Mussolini were both irreligious, (elsewhere Stalin and Franco too), so perhaps it's the atheist leaders we should beware of, (Winston Churchill was a Christian).
Khandro: Leaders both good and hideous come in all flavours including religious and atheist. The really bad ones actually worshiped themselves regardless of their nominal religious alignment.
Jomifl rightly pointed out that the Third Reich so successfully waltzed though France because many simply complied with authority as they did with the church.
It is the nature of the religious philosophies that hold morality is a matter of authority while discouraging individual responsibility and consciousness.
BTW An objective look at Churchill doesn't look pretty particularly when considering his pivotal role in the destruction of the democratically elected government of Iran.
Jomifl rightly pointed out that the Third Reich so successfully waltzed though France because many simply complied with authority as they did with the church.
It is the nature of the religious philosophies that hold morality is a matter of authority while discouraging individual responsibility and consciousness.
BTW An objective look at Churchill doesn't look pretty particularly when considering his pivotal role in the destruction of the democratically elected government of Iran.
Jom's argument, Khandro, surely, is that an uncritical belief in authority such as Christianity promotes makes it easier for a Hitler or a Stalin. The Catholic church in Western Europe and (some suggest) the Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe have not been obvious bastions of "Christian" morality against the various nationalist movements responsible for the slaughter of the Jews under the Third Reich and later, following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the persecution of the Muslims of Bosnia etc.
Thanks to whomever it was who, on a different thread, recommended Stephen Law's "The War for Children's Minds". The book is an argument for liberal moral education, and, by extension, an attack on education based on deference to authority. He cites a Professor Glover who investigated opposition to the Nazis: "If you look at the people who sheltered Jews...they tended to have a different kind of upbringing...to have sympathy with other people and to discuss things rather than just do what they were told". And Glover's conclusion: "..teaching people to think rationally and critical can make a difference to people's susceptibility to false ideologies".
Regarding your question, I don't really think much of an Atheist Alliance. I do remember de Botton, whom you've quoted recently, advocating a Temple of Atheism some while ago. And I don't think much of that idea either. I do however subscribe to a secular agenda which would ban faith schools not private religious teaching before anyone complains) and have a religious instruction syllabus which would teach children about all religions. We could speculate how better the situation in Northern Ireland might have been if that single secular policy had been enforced. What would SandyRoe think, I wonder?
Thanks to whomever it was who, on a different thread, recommended Stephen Law's "The War for Children's Minds". The book is an argument for liberal moral education, and, by extension, an attack on education based on deference to authority. He cites a Professor Glover who investigated opposition to the Nazis: "If you look at the people who sheltered Jews...they tended to have a different kind of upbringing...to have sympathy with other people and to discuss things rather than just do what they were told". And Glover's conclusion: "..teaching people to think rationally and critical can make a difference to people's susceptibility to false ideologies".
Regarding your question, I don't really think much of an Atheist Alliance. I do remember de Botton, whom you've quoted recently, advocating a Temple of Atheism some while ago. And I don't think much of that idea either. I do however subscribe to a secular agenda which would ban faith schools not private religious teaching before anyone complains) and have a religious instruction syllabus which would teach children about all religions. We could speculate how better the situation in Northern Ireland might have been if that single secular policy had been enforced. What would SandyRoe think, I wonder?
@Khandro - The usual canards. You still haven't commented on the fact that you misrepresented Richard Dawkins - something not unusual at all amongst the faithful.
Now you are attempting to parrot yet another false meme - that Hitler and Stalin were motivated by their atheism to do what they did. Charitably, that could be termed weak minded at best. Leaving aside for the moment the factual inaccuracy of asserting Hitler was atheist, its just a facile comment.
Those regimes were dictatorial, totalitarian and carried along by a cult of personality through a combination of charisma and fear. What was expected was obedience, the blind following of the leaders will. What was actively discouraged was the questioning of orders or the use of critical thinking. Sound familiar? Yes, you are right! - they share much much more in common with religious hierarchies and theocracies than they do with secular libertarianism. Evidence abounds of that - even posts here from our resident JWs show unquestioning faith in the word of god.Much easier to reconcile atrocity if you can perform said atrocities on behalf of divine instruction.
Don't you get tired of repeating rubbish thats been rebutted and refuted countless times Khandro? For someone who allegedly holds creativity and "spirituality" in such high regard, it is sad to see the same tired old arguments, the same mendacious tactics of cherry - picking quotations and misrepresentation, the same false equivalence, with the sneering "Archbishop of Atheism" comment?
Are all theists reduced to mendacity, misrepresentation and, whats worse, lack of originality when supporting their evidence-free contentions?
Now you are attempting to parrot yet another false meme - that Hitler and Stalin were motivated by their atheism to do what they did. Charitably, that could be termed weak minded at best. Leaving aside for the moment the factual inaccuracy of asserting Hitler was atheist, its just a facile comment.
Those regimes were dictatorial, totalitarian and carried along by a cult of personality through a combination of charisma and fear. What was expected was obedience, the blind following of the leaders will. What was actively discouraged was the questioning of orders or the use of critical thinking. Sound familiar? Yes, you are right! - they share much much more in common with religious hierarchies and theocracies than they do with secular libertarianism. Evidence abounds of that - even posts here from our resident JWs show unquestioning faith in the word of god.Much easier to reconcile atrocity if you can perform said atrocities on behalf of divine instruction.
Don't you get tired of repeating rubbish thats been rebutted and refuted countless times Khandro? For someone who allegedly holds creativity and "spirituality" in such high regard, it is sad to see the same tired old arguments, the same mendacious tactics of cherry - picking quotations and misrepresentation, the same false equivalence, with the sneering "Archbishop of Atheism" comment?
Are all theists reduced to mendacity, misrepresentation and, whats worse, lack of originality when supporting their evidence-free contentions?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.