In God We Must

[Razgovory]

They also ignore me.

That probably describes a lot of posters.

Two I know of.

[The Brain]

Religious people are obviously more stupid than non-religious people. But luckily you don't have to be intelligent to go to Heaven.

[crazy canuck]

Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations.  You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.

The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.  But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid.  It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.

Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.

You really should stop with the analogies.  Its like a meta ad hom?  No for it to be an ad hom I would be critical of what you say because it is you saying it.  Rather I am critical of what you say because your argument is based on a gross generalization and I was pointing out to Raz that he was beginning to make the same mistake.

[Neil]

Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).

I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.

I'm sure that you have though.

[Jacob]

Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.

Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.

They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.

They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism

They don't make their followers take poison.

We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.

I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.

Really?  Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement.  He has quite a few devoted followers.  I think he is quite  representative.  I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.

What have atheists done?

[fhdz]

What have atheists done?

I too am anxious (possibly even a-twitter!) to hear the enumerated and detailed misadventures of the "New Atheist movement".

[Barrister]

Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.

Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.

They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.

They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism

They don't make their followers take poison.

We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.

I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.

Really?  Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement.  He has quite a few devoted followers.  I think he is quite  representative.  I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.

What have atheists done?

They type long and annoying screeds on the internet.

[fhdz]

They type long and annoying screeds on the internet.

Something must be done!

[Ideologue]

Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.

Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.

They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.

They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism

They don't make their followers take poison.

We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.

I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.

Really?  Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement.  He has quite a few devoted followers.  I think he is quite  representative.  I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.

What have atheists done?

Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count?

[Barrister]

They type long and annoying screeds on the internet.

Something must be done!

Absolutely! 

[Razgovory]

Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count?

If not, then the Christero War certainly should.

[Martinus]

The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.

Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive.

[Malthus]

The reason the "new athiests" to the extent they are a movement are harmless is the same as why they are ineffectual: that despite being fundamentally right, they only get notice or press when they say exaggerated and extreme stuff that pisses (most) people off (the article discussed upthread being a good example). While that gets them notice, it also tends to get them filed in the same mental niche as radical vegetarians and the like. 

You don't make waves with 'there is no evidence for any supernatural aspect of any religion'. It is better if you say something like 'only very stupid or insane people could possibly believe in magic sky unicorns' and, even better, 'teaching kids frightening things about magic sky unicorns is worse than having them buggered'. 

I can't imagine what possible good this sort of "argument" does. People become athiests for various reasons - most commonly by simple observation of science - but I can't imagine many are insulted into it.

[fhdz]

Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count?

Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?

[Razgovory]

The reason the "new athiests" to the extent they are a movement are harmless is the same as why they are ineffectual: that despite being fundamentally right, they only get notice or press when they say exaggerated and extreme stuff that pisses (most) people off (the article discussed upthread being a good example). While that gets them notice, it also tends to get them filed in the same mental niche as radical vegetarians and the like. 

You don't make waves with 'there is no evidence for any supernatural aspect of any religion'. It is better if you say something like 'only very stupid or insane people could possibly believe in magic sky unicorns' and, even better, 'teaching kids frightening things about magic sky unicorns is worse than having them buggered'. 

I can't imagine what possible good this sort of "argument" does. People become athiests for various reasons - most commonly by simple observation of science - but I can't imagine many are insulted into it.

Disagree.  What makes them noteworthy is their hatred of religion.  They are not content to simply be Atheists, but are devoted to destroying religion.  This of course isn't new, but previous groups tended to be communist or fellow travelers.  The "New atheists" are the post-communist variant and have for the most part tried to distant themselves from communists.  Christopher Hitchens was sort of the link between the old and the new.  This hatred is what makes them say silly things and entertain silly ideas like memetics and the Bicameral Mind.