I’m curious what people think of the fact that Atheism has gone missionary. What do you make of Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens all writing best sellers telling us that we don’t need religion, or that it’s a virus or a disease or what have you?
I find it sort of bemusing. I know others who see it as the end of western civilization.
What about you?
Will atheism bring about the end of Europe because secularists don’t breed at replacement rate? Is it about damn time? Is it a blip in history? Is it significant? What does it all mean sociologically, politically, etc…?
I think a couple of atheists writing books doesn’t mean atheism has gone missionary - the statement is close to meaningless, because there’s no unified structure to go missionary - and given there are probably a dozen religious books published a day, most of which sell better than anything Dawkins is going to write, I don’t think it’ll make much difference. And like Miller, I don’t have a lot of use for it.
There’s no connection between secularism and breeding. The population is down is secular countries and in more religious ones. There’s a connection between socioeconomic status and smaller families, and there’s probably a connection between money, education and secularism (which is not the same as atheism either), but there’s no connection between secularism and families, or Richard Dawkins and this issue.
I suppose. If the ideas can be expressed without anyone being set on fire, that’s a good thing, and down the road maybe people will be a little more used to the idea of atheists.
I think it’s actually a really good idea. Many theists still view atheists as, well, devil worshippers, so I think that getting some info out about what we really believe (and disbelieve) is a good thing. For example, look at how many people are of the belief that if you don’t worship a god, you can’t have any morals.
I wish that it wasn’t necessary to make a big deal out of a lack of belief, but as long as the predominant religions paint atheists as baby eaters, I think that what Dawkins is doing is a good idea.
I wasn’t aware of a major trend of atheist proselytizing. I’ve never been accosted by any atheist on the street to stop believing in god which would be redundant since I don’t anyway. I don’t know why but I really like listening to Dawkins speak, that accent just gives him incredible linguistic skills that can’t be beat. I kind of like the fact that we live in a time where people can do that sort of thing but in other ways it is kind of pointless. Does anyone really need to be told that they can disbelieve in god?
Depends. I don’t like 'in your face" atheists anymore than I like “in your face” religious folks. But I do think out mainstream culture needs some balance from the Creationist types, so I pretty much support the stuff Dawkins is doing. Personally, I just can’t get too worked up about trying convert (unconvert?) religious people, though. If they leave me alone, I’m happy to leave them alone.
How could there not be a backlash against the hot and heavy end-times talk surrounding the millenium?
We’re well into 2007, and neither Jesus nor the Antichrist have appeared. The continents haven’t drowned. Most folks are still alive. People are noticing the absence of apocalyptic events. For some, that’s a faith shaking experience. What better time for the athiests to strike?
Except what he’s doing is painting atheists as gigantic, petulant twats, which seems counterproductive if you’re looking to reverse the negative impression a lot of people have about atheists.
You know what I like? I like religious tolerance. And that means not acting like a dick because someone has a different belief system than you do. I’ve got no more use for a holy roller who tells me I’m morally bankrupt if I don’t believe in Christ, than I do for some bitter atheist telling me I’m mentally deficient if I do believe in Christ. “Evangelical” atheists are just as annoying as their more traditional counterparts, and I just wish both sides would shut the hell up.
This stuff is called millenialism because it sprung up around the turn of the millenium before this one, so don’t expect it to go anywhere. For people like that, the apocalypse is always just around the corner and everything is another sign.
Of course I am aware of that fact. I was more trying to make the point that atheists proselytizing seems kind of silly to me. I can understand why a given religion would choose to do so because they are trying to inform a person about a religion or denomination of which they may not be knowledgeable. If the atheist proselytizer is just telling people there is no god, well that seems dumb. I like better the idea the other poster was trying to point out that in some cases like Dawkins they are really advocating reason and science above atheism.
In defense of atheism :eek: , “religion” in the US is making a very solid push to impose their agenda on everyone, so it would be only fair if “atheism” reacted to it and pushed back. The whole creationism, religious right bollockery needs to be stopped, and I guess it is up to “secularism” to pick up that load.
I count myself as a believer but I’m all for it. I think it does help to find balance. Aren’t we inundated with religious media daily? I wasn’t aware of the prejudice and ignorance about atheism until it started getting press. Isn’t it true that an atheist couldn’t get elected for any public office in this country because the voting public has some totally incorrect idea about atheism? That’s ignorance and deserves to be opposed.
I agree with Sam Harris that beliefs should be challenged. If people of religious faith are going to press their religious and moral view onto others then the others can challenge them to defend their beliefs. I think open honest dialog is good for the thought process. I find my own beliefs are clarified by having to defend them and listening to people who believe very differently. IMHO it’s a necessity to human progress.
it’s interesting to see on this board that some atheists exhibit the same kind of “I’m right no matter what” BS that we see from religious fundamentalists but when you consider the Swaggarts, Falwells, Dobsons, and Robertsons of this world we see they pale in comparison.
So, with minimum animosity and resentment, let the arguments fly. We need it.
In addition, in order to help the balance I think an intelligent articulate atheist should have his own radio or talk show, and challenge religious leaders to come on and defend themselves against the facts. OOoooohh the fireworks would be interesting.
Close, but not quite. There is at least one openly atheistic member of Congress (can’t remember his name). In the vast majority of cases, though, you’re right.
I think you make a good point. Challenging believers who want to impose their beliefs on others requires more than " You must be a gullible fool to believe in that crap" Unfortunately neither side will shut up so those of us who would like a more reasoned tolerant discussion need to be vocal as well.
